Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear weapons

  • Nuclear Zero: The Necessary Number

    This article is the introduction to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Annual Report.

    David KriegerIn 1945 the first nuclear weapon was tested and, within weeks, the next two nuclear weapons were used by the United States on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    By 1986 there were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world, nearly all in the arsenals of the US and USSR.

    Today there are just over 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world,

    which means that, since the mid-1980s, the world has shed some 50,000 nuclear weapons. That’s progress, but it’s far from sufficient.

    There are still some 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the US and Russian arsenals. These weapons are accidents waiting to happen.

    Atmospheric scientists tell us that, in a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 50 nuclear weapons from each side were exploded on the other side’s cities, enough soot would be put into the stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons, and cause crop failures leading to a billion deaths by starvation globally. Nuclear famine is only part of the havoc that a “small” nuclear war would cause.

    Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet. It is what the human future requires of us. For the sake of the seven billion inhabitants of our planet, for everyone who matters to each of us, for everything that matters to each of us, we must strive for and achieve Nuclear Zero.

    Another necessary number is One, because each one of us has the power to make a difference with our voice, our actions and our support. When a dedicated portion of the seven billion Ones on the planet are joined together and motivated, they can achieve any great and necessary goal, including Nuclear Zero.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are committed to providing Peace Leadership that emphasizes the Power of One in achieving Nuclear Zero.

  • Avoiding Needless Wars, Part 10: Iran

    Martin HellmanThe interim agreement to freeze Iran’s nuclear program has been praised by some as a diplomatic breakthrough and condemned by others as a prelude to nuclear disaster. A full appraisal must wait until we see what the follow-on agreements, if any, look like. In the meantime, here’s my take:

    1. The only alternative to negotiations is a military strike powerful and sustained enough to not only destroy Iran’s current nuclear program but also to prevent its resurrection. Such actions are impossible in the current political climate — and probably in any environment.

    Domestically, Americans are tired of wars, and our budget is already highly stressed. Internationally, we’ve developed a reputation as a bull in a china shop, so an American attack would be met with howls of indignation. It also would reinvigorate terrorism against Israel as Iran totally unleashed Hezbollah and Hamas.

    A strike which prevented Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons would not be surgical or short lived and might be impossible. At a minimum, it would require hundreds of thousands of American “boots on the ground” for years on end, and cost trillions of dollars. It probably would cost tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives.

    Even with that level of effort, an American invasion probably would fail to achieve its objective since Iran would be a more powerful adversary than either Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which have failed to produce anything that might be called an American victory.

    In 2010, TIME magazine explained why then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates advised against attacking Iran: “Military action, Gates warned, would solve nothing; in fact it would be more likely to drive Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

    Gates’ warning was echoed last year by former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. James Cartwright: “If they [the Iranians] have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that. … They can slow it down. They can delay it, some estimate two to five years. But that does not take away the intellectual capital.”

    Also last year, Yuval Diskin, a former head of Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, warned that, contrary to its intention, attacking Iran might accelerate its nuclear program.

    While a military strike is the only alternative to negotiations, the above arguments show that it is not a viable option. Diplomacy is our only real option, so the question becomes how to practice it most effectively.

    2. Given that diplomacy is our only viable option, we need to recognize that our past negotiating position – and the one Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is demanding be reinstated – is a non-starter.

    There’s no way Iran will dismantle its centrifuges and the rest of its nuclear program based on American promises of sanctions relief, especially when those promises might be rescinded by a new administration in 2015, over-ridden by Congress, or nullified by an Israeli attack.

    Our broken promises to Gaddafi add to Iran’s mistrust. In 2003, when he gave up his nuclear weapons program, President Bush promised that this good behavior would be rewarded. Yet, in 2011, our airstrikes played a key role in toppling and murdering Gaddafi.

    Iran also mistrusts us because we aided Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, even though we knew he was using chemical weapons – an action we later used as part of our tortured logic for deposing him.

    For diplomacy to work, we will have to prove that we have experienced a fundamental change of heart with respect to Iran and are prepared to follow through on the promises we make.

    3. Iran appears to be only months away from being able to make at least a crude nuclear weapon. While there’s plenty of blame to go around, Israel and the US need to stop putting all of the onus on Iran and recognize that we, too, played a part in creating the current mess.

    Repeatedly threatening to attack Iran, including with nuclear weapons (a possibility threatened in President Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review) would have made even the most rational Iranian leaders seek a deterrent. And their leadership over the last 30 years has often been far from rational. Fortunately, the current leadership appears more reasonable, and that’s an opening we need to test. If, instead, we maintain a bellicose posture, we will pull the rug out from under the moderates and empower the hardliners in Iran. Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar recently warned that American and Israeli hawks who mistrust diplomacy may be intentionally trying to strengthen hard-liners in Iran since they, too, oppose diplomacy.

    While our intention was to halt nuclear proliferation, we have actually encouraged it – particularly in Iran and North Korea – with our militarized approach to foreign affairs.

    I don’t like leaving Iran so close to having a nuclear capability, but the alternatives appear  far worse. It’s time to admit that our Iranian policy thus far has been a disaster and try something new – real diplomacy.

    Suggestions for Further Reading

    Harvard’s Belfer Center has a summary of the best arguments both pro and con on the interim agreement.

    Dr. Abbas Milani, Co-Director of the Iran Democracy Project at Stanford’s Hoover Institution has an excellent article assessing Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani.

    Handout #5 from my Stanford seminar on “Nuclear Weapons, Risk, and Hope” applies critical thinking to North Korea and Iran. All handouts are accessible from my Courses Page.

    This article was originally published by Defusing the Nuclear Threat.

  • Some Thoughts on the 2013 Nagasaki Appeal

    David KriegerThe Fifth Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was held November 2-4, 2013 in Nagasaki.  Citizens of Nagasaki continued their tradition of convening such Global Citizens’ Assemblies, which they have held every few years since the year 2000.  I have been privileged to have been a participant and speaker in all five meetings as an invited guest of the city of Nagasaki, and to have participated in the drafting of all the Nagasaki Appeals.

    The 2013 Nagasaki Appeal is an extraordinary document.  It reflects the spirit of Nagasaki, the second of two atomic bombed cities on the planet, and the desire of its atomic bomb survivors to assure that Nagasaki remains the last city ever to suffer such a tragedy.  I believe the Appeal should be read by every citizen of Earth and studied by young people everywhere.  I’d like to share with you some of its highlights.

    The Appeal begins with good news and bad news.  It points out that over 50,000 nuclear weapons have been eliminated in the past quarter century (good news), but that 17,000 remain, only a small number of which could end civilization and most life on Earth (bad news).  It expresses concerns that repeated delays by the nuclear weapons states in fulfilling their commitment to nuclear disarmament under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) “has discredited the nonproliferation regime and may destroy it.”  Such a consequence would indeed be very bad news.

    The Appeal takes note of the nuclear power accident at Fukushima, Japan in March 2011: “The fear and suffering of Fukushima citizens for their health and life renewed our recognition of the danger of radioactivity, whether from nuclear weapons or nuclear energy.  The experiences of Fukushima and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have shown us that the effects of nuclear disasters are uncontrollable in time and space.”

    Despite “daunting challenges,” the Appeal finds there are reasons for hope, among which is the renewed international attention to the devastating humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.  It also found that reliance upon nuclear deterrence for national security is “delusional,” in a world in which human security and global security are threatened by nuclear weapons.

    The Appeal calls for a series of concrete actions, including commencing negotiations on the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons; the US and Russia taking unilateral and bilateral nuclear disarmament measures; phasing out of reliance on nuclear weapons in the security policies of all countries; having greater citizen participation in nuclear abolition campaigns; establishing new nuclear weapon-free zones; aiding the victims of Fukushima; and learning the lesson that humanity cannot continue to rely upon nuclear energy any more than it can rely upon nuclear weapons.

    The Appeal also offers some specific advice to the Japanese government based upon its special responsibilities as the world’s only country to be attacked with nuclear weapons.  These responsibilities include: coming out from under the US nuclear umbrella; providing leadership to achieve a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia; demonstrating leadership for nuclear weapons abolition; and seeking and welcoming international assistance in controlling the radiological crisis at Fukushima.

    The participants in the Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly pledge to continue “utmost efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.”  It is a necessary goal for humanity and for the future.  It is the great challenge that confronts all of us living on the planet in the Nuclear Age.  Nagasaki is doing its part to lead the way.  They need our voices and our commitment to succeed.

  • Hope for a Nuclear Zero World

    NAPF President David Krieger delivered this speech at Soka University of America on November 16, 2013.

    I’m very pleased to be back at Soka University of America. I have high respect for educational institutions, such as yours, that promote world citizenship. I’ve also witnessed the outstanding efforts that have been made in the past by the youth of Soka Gakkai International.

    A Journey of Hope

    David KriegerIn 1997, I spoke in Tokyo to an international group of Soka Gakkai youth. In doing so, I told them about an Abolition 2000 International Petition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The petition called for ending the nuclear weapons threat by, for example, de-alerting nuclear arsenals; signing an international treaty by the year 2000 to eliminate nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework; and reallocating resources from military purposes to assuring a sustainable future.

    A few days after my talk to the Soka Gakkai youth, I was told that, led by the youth of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these young people and their friends were determined to gather one million signatures on the Abolition 2000 Petition. I thought this was a large and ambitious number and was very happy that they had made this commitment. By the time they were finished, though, they had vastly exceeded their initial goal, gathering over 13 million signatures in a matter of only a few months.

    On that trip to Japan, I had the pleasure of meeting Soka Gakkai International President Daisaku Ikeda in Yokohama. It was a memorable meeting, as we watched together a most impressive cultural festival with performers from many countries. The next year I was invited back to Japan to symbolically accept the 13 million signatures for transmittal to the United Nations. On that trip, I visited Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Okinawa. I had the chance to personally thank the young people who had participated in the signature-gathering campaign. I called my trip through Japan a “Journey of Hope,” hope because of the diligent efforts and promising action of young people.

    Choosing Hope

    At the end of that trip, when meeting with President Ikeda in Okinawa, we decided to do a dialogue on choosing hope. The dialogue took over a year to complete. It was published in Japanese in the year 2000, and two years later in English with the title, Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age. In that dialogue, President Ikeda and I exchanged ideas about peace, nuclear weapons and hope. Among the areas of our agreement are the following:

    Peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. The creation, possession, modernization, testing, proliferation, threat and possible use of nuclear weapons make peace essential. Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy civilization and end complex life on Earth, including human life.
    Nuclear weapons are an absolute evil and must be abolished. This conclusion builds on the 1957 Declaration of Josei Toda, the second president of Soka Gakkai. Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately. They are illegal and immoral. Their effects cannot be contained in time or space. They threaten the human future.

    Peace must be pursued actively. It must be waged with a similar intensity, commitment and courage as the waging of war. The nonviolence of peace does not imply passivity.

    To achieve peace and abolish nuclear weapons, young people must lead the way. Today’s youth are the future of humanity. If they desire peace and a future free of nuclear threat, they must stand up, speak out and demand peaceful solutions to conflict and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Choosing hope is critical to any great goal, including the abolition of nuclear weapons. We all have a choice. We can choose hope or allow ourselves to fall into despair. Hope gives rise to action, and action reinforces hope. The opposite of hope is despair, which gives rise to inaction. Thus, we encourage all people, and particularly young people, to choose hope and act upon it.

    There are three important C’s: compassion, commitment and courage. Meaningful change in our world requires individuals who live lives of compassion, commitment and courage.

    One must never give up. All difficult goals require perseverance. Giving up on peace, nuclear weapons abolition, or any difficult goal is not an option if we want to create a more decent and loving world.

    To achieve the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world will require all of the above and more. It will also require: understanding what nuclear weapons really are and the danger they pose to humanity; delegitimizing nuclear weapons for all countries of the world with no exceptions; recognizing the important role of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the hibakusha; and developing a new universal ethic for the 21st century.

    Understanding What Nuclear Weapons Really Are: Nukes Are Nuts

    They are not ordinary weapons of war. They are insanely powerful devices of mass annihilation. They cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, making them both immoral and illegal. Further, they do not protect their possessors; they only make possible mass murder of innocent people. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate suicide note to the planet. They are uncivilized tools of vengeance that have no place in a civilized world. Nukes are nuts.

    Delegitimizing Nuclear Weapons

    Political and military leaders of some countries believe that nuclear weapons have legitimate military purposes. They are short-sighted and mistaken. Weapons of mass annihilation can have no legitimacy. A simple test is this: If nuclear weapons are legitimate for one country, why shouldn’t they be considered legitimate for all countries? The same leaders who advocate legitimacy of these weapons for their own countries would be horrified at the prospect of doing the same for all countries.

    Importance of Hibakusha

    No group of people can reach the hearts of their fellow humans and make clearer what these weapons really are than the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is why their words and their pleas are so important. They have lived with the pain of those fateful and deadly bombings. They have sounded the warning. Because hibakusha are growing older and becoming fewer, their message to the world, and particularly to young people, is even more precious and comes with a greater sense of urgency. I urge young people to reach out to hibakusha, learn from them, and help in conveying their message to the world; make their understanding about the need to abolish nuclear weapons also your own message to the world.

    Nuclear weapons endanger all of us. In the crisis of shared danger, comes the opportunity for shared action to overcome that danger. The hibakusha and civil society organizations are helping to lead the way out of the Nuclear Age. They are leading, but the leaders of the nuclear weapons states are not yet demonstrating the political will to follow or to lead themselves.

    New Universal Ethic

    Nuclear weapons could render the planet uninhabitable for humans and other complex forms of life, but the planet itself would survive the worst we could do. It is not the planet that is endangered; it is we humans.

    I believe we humans need a new ethic to see us safely through and out of the Nuclear Age. For me, this new universal ethic would have the following elements:

    Reverence for life. This is the central philosophy of Albert Schweitzer. It requires us to care for our fellow humans and for all creatures. We must be kind and good stewards of the planet.

    Earth citizenship. We owe our allegiance to the Earth and to people everywhere. Our problems are global and our solutions must be global as well.

    Universal human rights, including the sacred right to peace. All humans are entitled by virtue of being human to the basic rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the United Nations has declared, there is also a sacred right to peace.

    Universal human responsibilities. With rights come responsibilities, including each generation’s responsibility to pass the planet on intact to new generations.

    Nuclear weapons are incompatible with these ethical foundations. As the ultimate mass killing device, they are the antithesis of reverence for life. They divide countries and their inhabitants into nuclear haves and have-nots. They are an assault on human rights and life itself, and their possession and threat of use are a violation of our responsibilities to humankind as a whole and to future generations.

    Nuclear Zero

    In 1945 the first nuclear weapon was tested by the United States. Within a few weeks the US then used two nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroying those cities and killing and injuring their inhabitants. This was followed by a nuclear arms race, which reached its peak by 1986 with 70,000 nuclear weapons on the planet. Since then, the numbers have declined significantly, and today there are just over 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, mostly in the arsenals of the US and Russia. This is still far too many, since one nuclear weapon can destroy a city and only 100 nuclear weapons used in a regional war between India and Pakistan could cause a Nuclear Famine leading to two billion deaths worldwide. The only number of nuclear weapons on the planet that makes sense is Zero. Our urgent goal must be a safe passage from where we are to Nuclear Zero.

    On the path to Nuclear Zero, I would encourage bold actions to engage the nuclear-addicted states (those with nuclear weapons) and the nuclear-dependent states (those that rely upon the nuclear umbrella of nuclear-addicted states). The concerned citizens of these states, along with the citizens of the nuclear-free states, must form a bond to push for change. The status quo is no longer acceptable. The sense of urgency and the speed of change toward Nuclear Zero must intensify for the common good.

    A Summit of Youth

    I believe it must be young people, following in the moral footsteps of the hibakusha, who must lead the way. How are you to do it? I can only point you in the direction that you need to travel. You must forge a new path, one not yet cleared in the Nuclear Age. The path must be forged in the belief that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil and in the spirit of waging peace. It must be traveled boldly and with the confidence that the future belongs to those who follow their dreams for a better tomorrow.

    I strongly support Daisaku Ikeda’s proposal for a Nuclear Abolition Summit in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 2015. It is a bold and hopeful proposal. If the nuclear weapon states (the nuclear-addicted states) and the nuclear-dependent states won’t participate, though, I suggest making it a Summit of Youth from around the world to come together to join forces for a world free of nuclear weapons. Invite the non-nuclear weapons states (the nuclear-free states) to come to the Summit to initiate negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Let’s get to work banning nuclear weapons, with or without the nuclear weapon states. They cannot hold out indefinitely when confronted with the energy and passion of the youth of the world. One thing that seems certain to me is that the youth of the world are a more powerful force than even the most powerful nuclear warheads. Let the young people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima lead the way, starting with a Youth Nuclear Abolition Summit in 2015.

    Our Best Hope

    Our best hope for the human future is to unite in our support of the abolition of nuclear weapons. National security must give way to planetary security through the acts of individuals joining together with compassion, commitment and courage. To these we can add two more C’s – creativity and cooperation. We need to awaken from our slumber and be the noble people we are capable of being. We need leadership from the survivors of the atomic bombings and from the youth of Nagasaki and Hiroshima who support them. We actually need leadership from all youth of all countries. When nuclear weapons are abolished, it will be time for a new “C” – celebration. We can celebrate our gift to ourselves and to the future of humankind.

    Why Work to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    I will conclude with 12 reasons for working to abolish nuclear weapons.

    We can change the world in important and necessary ways.

    We can take a giant step forward for humankind.

    We can join with others in demonstrating good stewardship of the planet.

    We can take control of our most dangerous technology.

    We can help shape a more decent common future.

    We can end the threat of omnicide posed by nuclear weapons.

    We can uphold international law for the common benefit.

    We can lead the way toward ending war as a human institution.

    We can meet the greatest challenge confronting our species.

    We can put compassion into action and action into compassion.

    We can help to protect everything in life that we love and treasure.

    We can pass on a more secure world to our children and grandchildren and all future generations.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Delegitimziing Nuclear Weapons: The Role of Citizens and Hibakusha

    David KriegerTo understand how to delegitimize nuclear weapons, it is necessary to understand and deconstruct their legitimization.   Let us explore some of the beliefs by which these weapons have been legitimized.

    1.    Nuclear weapons ended World War II.
    2.    Nuclear weapons prevent war.
    3.    No rational leader would use nuclear weapons.
    4.    Nuclear weapons make countries more secure.
    5.    Nuclear weapons are needed to protect against a nuclear attack.

    Let’s examine these beliefs, and check their basis in fact.

    Nuclear weapons ended World War II.  At the end of World War II Japan was trying to surrender.  Nearly all of its major cities had already been destroyed by conventional bombing.  With the Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific on August 9, 1945, Japanese leaders knew they had no chance to prevail.  It wasn’t nuclear weapons that ended World War II.  It was the Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific.  Nuclear weapons caused massive suffering and death in a country that was already defeated and trying to surrender.

    Nuclear weapons prevent war.  It is said that the threat to use nuclear weapons has prevented war, but actually many wars have occurred during the Nuclear Age.  Nuclear weapons have not caused wars, but they also have not prevented wars.  Countries with nuclear weapons have thankfully been reluctant to use them, even when losing a war.  Examples include the US in Vietnam, the UK in the Falkland Islands, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

    No rational leader would use nuclear weapons.  Actually, a presumably rational leader, Harry Truman, did use nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  There is no guarantee that another rational leader in possession of nuclear weapons will not decide that the use of these weapons is in his or her country’s best interests.  In addition, not all national leaders are rational at all times and particularly in times of stress.  Some national leaders are simply not rational, even under normal circumstances.

    Nuclear weapons make countries more secure.  They actually do not.  If a country has nuclear weapons, it is certain that it will also be targeted by nuclear weapons.  The ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons does not assure that another country will not attack you by accident or design; it only assures that you can retaliate.  This would be small compensation after a nuclear attack.
    Nuclear weapons are needed to protect against a nuclear attack.  Not so.  The best protection against a nuclear attack is the global elimination of nuclear weapons.  If there are no nuclear weapons on the planet, no country can be attacked.

    What Nuclear Weapons Really Are

    To delegitimize nuclear weapons, people need to understand what nuclear weapons really are and really do.  They need to understand that nuclear weapons undermine their security rather than enhance it.  They need to call these weapons by their true names: devices of mass annihilation and instruments of omnicide (the death of all).

    When we speak of nuclear weapons, we refer to the most deadly and dangerous weapons ever created.  This is how retired US Air Force General George Lee Butler, once in charge of all US strategic nuclear weapons, describes nuclear weapons:

    “Nuclear weapons give no quarter. Their effects transcend time and space, poisoning the Earth and deforming its inhabitants for generation upon generation. They leave us wholly without defense, expunge all hope for survival. They hold in their sway not just the fate of nations but of civilization.”

    Religious leader and Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu has an equally strong view of the nature of nuclear weapons:

    “Nuclear weapons are an obscenity.  They are the very antithesis of humanity, of goodness in this world.  What security do they help establish?  What kind of world community are we actually seeking to build when nations possess and threaten to use arms that can wipe all of humankind off the globe in an instant?”

    Importance of Hibakusha

    No group of people can reach the hearts of their fellow humans and make clearer what these weapons really are than the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  That is why their words and their pleas are so important.  They have lived with the pain and sounded the warning.  Because the hibakusha are growing older and becoming fewer, their message to the world is even more precious and comes with a greater sense of urgency.  I urge young people to reach out to hibakusha, learn from them, and help in conveying their message to the world; make their conclusions about the need to abolish nuclear weapons also your own message to the world.

    Nuclear weapons endanger all of us.  In the crisis of shared danger, comes the possibility of shared action to overcome that danger.  The hibakusha and civil society organizations are helping to lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.  They are leading, but the nuclear weapons states are not yet demonstrating the political will to follow.

    New Ethic

    Nuclear weapons are an absolute evil.  They are the ultimate suicide note to the planet.  They could render the planet uninhabitable for humans and other complex forms of life, but the planet itself would survive the worst we could do.  It is not the planet that is endangered; it is we humans.
    I believe we humans need a new ethic to see us safely through and out of the Nuclear Age.  For me, this new universal ethic would have the following elements:

    •    Reverence for life.  This is the central philosophy of Albert Schweitzer.  It requires us to care for our fellow humans and for all creatures.  We must be kind and good stewards of the planet.

    •    Earth citizenship.  We owe our allegiance to the Earth and to people everywhere.  Our problems are global and our solutions must be global as well.

    •    Universal human rights, including the sacred right to peace.  All humans are entitled by virtue of being human to the basic rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  As the United Nations has declared, there is also a sacred right to peace.

    •    Universal human responsibilities.  With rights come responsibilities, including each generation’s responsibility to pass the planet on intact to new generations.

    Nuclear weapons are incompatible with these ethical foundations.  As the ultimate mass killing device, they are the antithesis to reverence for life.  They divide countries and their inhabitants into nuclear haves and have-nots.  They are an assault on human rights and life itself, and their possession and threat of use are a violation of our responsibilities to humankind as a whole and to future generations.

    Immediate Goals

    Immediate goals include:

    •    either a treaty or individual pledges by all nuclear weapons states of No First Use of nuclear weapons;

    •    de-alerting of nuclear arsenals; and

    •    commencement of negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Our best hope for the human future is to unite in support of the abolition of nuclear weapons.  National security must give way to planetary security through the acts of individuals joining together with compassion, commitment, creativity and cooperation, and acting with courage.  We need to awaken from our slumber and be the noble people we are capable of being.  When nuclear weapons are abolished, it will be time for a new “C”: celebration.  We can celebrate our gift to ourselves and to the future.

    Why Work to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    I will conclude with 12 reasons to work to abolish nuclear weapons.

    We can change the world in important and necessary ways.
    We can take a giant step forward for humankind.
    We can join with others in demonstrating good stewardship of the planet.
    We can take control of our most dangerous technology.
    We can help shape a more decent common future.
    We can end the threat of omnicide posed by nuclear weapons.
    We can uphold international law for the common benefit.
    We can lead the way toward ending war as a human institution.
    We can meet the greatest challenge confronting our species.
    We can put compassion into action and action into compassion.
    We can help to protect everything in life that we love and treasure.
    We can pass on a more secure world to our children and grandchildren and all future generations.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • 2013 Nagasaki Appeal

    Although more than 50,000 nuclear weapons have been eliminated since 1986, more than 17,000 remain. It would only take a small number of these weapons of mass destruction to end civilization and most life on earth. Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, another five host U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil, and more still base their security on alliances with nuclear weapon states. Countless atomic bomb survivors worked hard until their last days for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The danger of nuclear annihilation, by accident, miscalculation or design continues to cast a dark shadow over humanity’s future. In addition, the failure of the nuclear weapon states to achieve more progress toward a nuclear weapons free world is undermining the legitimacy of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The nuclear weapon states’ repeated delays in fulfilling their “unequivocal” commitment to nuclear disarmament has discredited the nonproliferation regime and may destroy it. The massive and ongoing releases of radiation from the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima nuclear power plant which resulted from the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011, demonstrated yet again the inability of human beings to control nuclear technology. The fear and suffering of Fukushima citizens for their health and life renewed our recognition of the danger of radioactivity, whether from nuclear weapons or nuclear energy. The experiences of Fukushima and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have shown us that the effects of nuclear disasters are uncontrollable in time and space. Despite the daunting challenges, there are reasons for hope. Among them, the renewed emphasis on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use, which the hibakusha have been calling for for decades. In 1996, the International Court of Justice, in considering the uniquely destructive effects of nuclear weapons concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal. The final document of the 2010 NPT review conference expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirmed “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.” Describing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, the resolution adopted in November 2011 by the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identified the need to “conclude … negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement.” Since 2010, the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons have been discussed in the United Nations General Assembly and at preparatory committee meetings for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. In addition, an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, hosted by the government of Norway, was held in Oslo in March 2013. A follow-on meeting, will be hosted by the government of Mexico in February 2014. We welcome this trend and expect it to contribute to global efforts to achieve the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. The 2010 NPT Review Conference agreed: “All States need to make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons,” noting in particular “the Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” including the call for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The Open Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons held meetings in Geneva for the first time in May, June and August of this year. It was a new situation in which representatives of government and civil society participated as equals. This prompted the Conference on Disarmament, following 17 years of inaction, to establish an informal working group on nuclear disarmament. In addition, the first High Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament in the United Nations General Assembly was held in September 2013. This is being followed up by the Non Aligned Movement proposal to establish 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to hold a High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018. We are encouraged by such efforts and hope they continue. We emphasize and reiterate that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate and inhumane weapons of mass destruction, and their use would be impermissible under any circumstances. The idea that nuclear deterrence can assure a country’s security is delusional. Another use of nuclear weapons would cause human death and suffering across national borders and generations. It would result in destruction of the environment and entire ecosystems. Even a relatively small regional nuclear exchange could result in a global “nuclear famine” leading to a billion deaths. Against this background, we appeal for the following concrete actions. 1.    Negotiations on the comprehensive prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons should start on the earliest occasion. We call for negotiations to begin in 2014, and for these negotiations to be supported by the NPT Review Conference in 2015 and the High Level Conference proposed to take place no later than 2018. 2.    The nuclear-armed countries, especially those with the largest arsenals, the U.S. and Russia, should make significant reductions in their strategic and non-strategic, deployed and undeployed nuclear stockpiles through bilateral or unilateral measures. All nuclear-armed countries should halt development and modernization of their nuclear weapons systems. The obscene amounts of money and scientific resources dedicated to these ends should be reallocated to meeting social and economic needs. 3.    All nations should phase out the role and significance of nuclear weapons in their military and foreign policies. Nuclear-armed countries and those countries that rely on nuclear umbrellas have a special responsibility. Nuclear-free countries can also take steps to delegitimize and stigmatize nuclear weapons, such as enacting national legislation and divesting from nuclear weapons industries. 4.    Governments and civil society should publicize the decision of the District Court of Tokyo in the Shimoda case: “The [atomic bomb] attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war,” especially following the 50th anniversary of the December 8, 1963 decision. 5.    We encourage greater citizen participation in campaigns for the elimination of nuclear weapons, such as Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons (Abolition 2000), the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). We welcome the engagement of young people around the world. 6.    We call for a redoubling of efforts to establish new nuclear weapon-free zones, including in the Middle East, Northeast Asia and the Arctic Circle. Nuclear weapon-free zones diminish the role of nuclear weapons in national security policies and reduce the risks of nuclear weapons use at the regional level. They also provide an achievable and more secure alternative to extended nuclear deterrence. 7.    The nuclear disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant continues to cause immeasurable damage and suffering to the citizens of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond. Those responsible for the Fukushima accident should be held accountable. At the same time, civil society should support programs to assist displaced residents and restore, as much as feasible, the damaged areas in Fukushima. Information about the ongoing crisis should be transparent and publically available. Those exposed to radiation should be guaranteed long-term medical assistance. We must not let Fukushima be forgotten. 8.    The accident at Fukushima has taught us that we cannot continue to rely upon nuclear energy. The hibakusha’s experience of the atomic bomb was brought to the United Nations in 1982 by Senji Yamaguchi, who declared: “No More Hiroshimas, No More Nagasakis, No more Hibakusha, No More War!” The accident at Fukushima requires the addition of “No More Fukushimas!” As the only nation that has experienced nuclear attacks in war, Japan has a special responsibility to lead in achieving a world without nuclear weapons. Therefore: 1.    We welcome Japan joining 124 other governments in signing a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on 21 October 2013. However, we regret the U.S. – Japanese joint security statement of 3 October 2013 which reaffirmed the Alliance’s commitment to the security of Japan “through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including nuclear and conventional.” The Japanese government should change its policy of reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella in conformity with the joint statement that indicates clearly that the continued existence of all humanity depends on not using nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.” 2.    We believe that the Japanese government should pursue the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia as a path to achieving security that does not rely upon nuclear deterrence. Leaders of 532 local authorities in Japan have expressed support for this idea, as did 83 Japanese and South Korean parliamentarians from across the political spectrum in a joint statement on 22 July 2010. In September 2013, the President of Mongolia indicated his country’s interest in exploring the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia at the United Nations General Assembly. We call upon the Japanese government to initiate a dialogue with the government of South Korea to achieve a Northeast Asia nuclear weapon-free zone. 3.    We call upon the Japanese government to inform the world about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons as an imperative for the abolition of nuclear weapons. To demonstrate leadership, Japan should take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to be held in Hiroshima in April 2014. Japan should also urge political leaders and government officials who will participate in the G20 Summit that will be held in Japan in 2016 to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 4.    We call on the Japanese government to seek and welcome independent, international expert assistance in stabilizing, containing and monitoring the radiological crisis at Fukushima. We, the participants in the 5th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, heard again the voices of survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and their urgent appeal that the elimination of nuclear weapons becomes a reality while they are still alive. We also listened to hopeful voices of young people accepting responsibility for achieving and maintaining a world without nuclear weapons. The ties of mutual understanding and solidarity were deepened through three days of spirited interaction and discussion. We pledge to continue our utmost efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, and we appeal to the people of the world: “Nagasaki must be the last A-bombed city.” by The 5th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

  • Hubris vs. Wisdom

    David Krieger delivered this speech in Nagasaki, Japan, on November 2, 2013.

    David KriegerMayor Taue, Dr. Tomonaga, people of Nagasaki, conference participants, I bring greetings from the 60,000 members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and wish to express to you and the city of Nagasaki our deep appreciation for continuing this tradition of Nagasaki Global Citizens Assemblies for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. It is a great pleasure to be back in this beautiful city, and I am particularly happy to renew old friendships.

    The steadfast commitment of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to nuclear weapons abolition for nearly seven decades is both admirable and honorable. Along with many millions of other thinking and caring people throughout the world, I share with you the hope and goal that Nagasaki will remain the last place on Earth where nuclear weapons are ever used in warfare.

    It is evident that there is only one way to assure this goal, and that is to abolish nuclear weapons. To do so will require leadership and a massive demand from people throughout the world. As one who has worked toward this goal for more than four decades, I know that this is an extremely difficult challenge, but I also know that we are making progress.

    In 1986, there were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Today there are just over 17,000. It is progress that the world has shed some 53,000 nuclear weapons in roughly the past quarter century, but we still have far too many. To assure that there are no more Hiroshimas or Nagasakis will require achieving a world with Zero nuclear weapons.

    Hubris Versus Wisdom

    In the Nuclear Age, humankind must not be passive in the face of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The future of humanity and all life depends upon the outcome of the ongoing struggle between hubris and wisdom.

    Hubris is an ancient Greek word meaning extreme arrogance. Wisdom is cautionary good sense.

    Hubris is at the heart of Greek tragedy – the arrogant belief that one’s power is unassailable. Wisdom counsels that no human power is impregnable.

    Hubris says some countries can hold onto nuclear weapons and rely upon them for deterrence. Wisdom says these weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

    Hubris says these terrible weapons are subject to human control. Wisdom says that humans are fallible creatures, subject to error.

    Hubris repeats that we can control our most dangerous technologies. Wisdom says look at what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    Hubris says the spread of nuclear weapons can be contained. Wisdom says that the only sure way to prevent the spread or use of nuclear weapons is to abolish those that exist.

    Hubris says that political leaders will always be rational and avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Wisdom observes that all humans, including political leaders, behave irrationally at some times under some circumstances.

    Hubris says we can play Russian roulette with the human future. Wisdom says we have a responsibility to assure there is a human future.

    Hubris says that we can control nuclear fire. Wisdom says nuclear weapons will spark wildfires of human suffering and must be eradicated forever from the planet.

    The Necessity of Wisdom

    In the Nuclear Age, wisdom is the best antidote to hubris. I want to go back in time to the horrific opening of the Nuclear Age and explore the wisdom of three men who understood clearly that the creation and use of atomic bombs changed the world. These men were Albert Camus, Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein. Their responses to the use of atomic weapons were very different from that of then-President of the United States Harry Truman, who, when he heard of the bombing of Hiroshima, is reported to have said, “This is the greatest thing in history.” He also thanked God that the bomb had come to the United States and not to its enemies.

    Albert Camus was a great French novelist and existentialist who, during World War II, edited the underground French Resistance newspaper, Combat. Twelve years after the war, in 1957, he would receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. After learning of the bombing of Hiroshima, even before the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, he wrote:

    “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.”

    Camus recognized instantly that, after the atomic bomb was created and used, peace needed to be elevated to the top of our hierarchy of values and goals. It needed to be pursued actively, that is waged, with the same strategic thinking, discipline, commitment and courage as for waging war. For Camus, the new circumstance of nuclear weapons in the world required the people to wage peace and to lead their leaders.

    Gandhi was the great proponent of satyagraha (truth-force) and nonviolence. He was leading India to independence from the British when the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Gandhi recalled his reaction to the bombs: “I did not move a muscle when I first heard that the atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, ‘Unless now the world adopts nonviolence, it will spell certain suicide for humanity.’ Nonviolence is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy.” For Gandhi, the violence of the atomic bomb could only be overcome by the nonviolence of humanity.

    Albert Einstein, the great scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Einstein saw that the old ways of thinking were a trap and that people must learn to think in new ways. I believe the most important new ways of thinking that are needed are species identification and solidarity, that is, we must think like members of one race, the human race. In doing so, we will learn to settle our differences peacefully and not through violence, and we will build institutions, such as the United Nations, that will support these ways of thinking. For Einstein, the critical factor brought about by atomic weaponry was the need for new modes of thinking if humankind is to avert “unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Three great men; three powerful expressions of wisdom.

    Ending the Nuclear Threat

    The only number of nuclear weapons that makes sense is Zero and that must be our goal: a world with Zero nuclear weapons. This world is only as far away as our imaginations, our determination and our perseverance. To achieve Nuclear Zero, we must wage peace, take nonviolent actions, and change our modes of thinking to identify as members of the human species. The Nuclear Age demands of us that we conquer hubris with wisdom.

    We must never give up on seeking the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We can follow wisdom and live together as humans, seeking solutions to our common problems; or we can follow the path of hubris and perish together stuck in our apathy, our ignorance and our national allegiances.

    The most important next step on the journey to a peaceful and non-killing world is ending the nuclear weapons era. This can be accomplished by the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. Progress is being made toward this goal, but it seems unbearably slow.

    Civil society and non-nuclear-weapon states must bring more pressure to bear upon the existing nuclear weapon states to negotiate the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. I would also encourage the countries participating in the upcoming Mexico conference to begin negotiations, with or without the nuclear weapons states, for a legal ban on the manufacture, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The process must begin, and it must be approached with a sense of urgency.

    Having identified the problem – that nuclear weapons endanger the human species and much of complex life – we should move rapidly toward eliminating the threat. In doing so, we will free up scientific and financial resources to deal with other pressing global threats, including climate change, development of renewable energy resources, pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, scarcity of potable water, food insecurity and loss of forests, biodiversity and arable land. For the future of humanity, we must also move forward to eliminate war as a human institution.

    A Few Simple Truths

    I will end with a short poem I wrote earlier this year. It is titled “A Few Simple Truths.”

    A FEW SIMPLE TRUTHS

    Life is the universe’s most precious creation.

        There is only one place we know of where life exists.

        Children, all children, deserve a full and fair chance.

        The bomb threatens all life.

        War is legitimized murder with collateral damage.

        Construction requires more than a hammer.

        The rising of the oceans cannot be contained by money.

        Love is the only currency that truly matters.

        One true human brings beauty to the earth.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Nuclear Zero: The Moral Imperative

    How grateful I am to be able to stand in this good company and to receive the honor that will make me a part of the great processional of those you have honored before me.
    I am especially grateful to your president, David Krieger.  David has a deep pervasive ultimate concern to which he has dedicated the full force of his creative energy and imagination.  He has this crazy idea to which he has committed himself: he wants to save the earth and all its inhabitants from self-destruction.  He wants to make the planet a more peaceable habitation for all of us, and for our children and grandchildren after us.  How good it is to be counted among his followers.
    Now here I bring you the words of the beloved poet, Stanley Kunitz, written when he was somewhere on his way to the 100 years he lived, before his death a few years ago.
    I have walked through many lives,
some of them my own,
and I am not who I was,
though some principle of being
abides, from which I struggle
not to stray.
When I look behind,
as I am compelled to look
before I can gather strength
to proceed on my journey,
I see the milestones dwindling
toward the horizon….
    And here am I, an aged rabbi, who, like a peddler with a pack on his back, wherever he goes, comes bearing a pack of notions, some very old and familiar notions:  “Love thy neighbor as thyself.  It hath been told thee what is good and what the Lord requires of thee: only to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.  And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.  And they shall sit, everyone, under his vine and his fig tree, with none to make them afraid.  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  And being for myself alone, what am I?  And if not now, when?” And here, from a 1,800-year-old commentary on the Bible, the Midrash, where God is portrayed showing Adam all that has been created, and says to him: “See my works, how fine and excellent they are.  All that I have created has been given to you.  Remember this and do not corrupt and desolate the world, for if you corrupt it, there is no one after you to set it right.”
    Those are ancient words and ancient visions.  They come out of the sacred books of the Jewish civilization, but surely they embody ideals and visions held sacred by Christians and Muslims, and other faiths, and non-believers as well.  To voice them here is to remember that we live in a world in which the ideals of love and fellowship and peace and justice and care for the planet, are daily being mutilated throughout the world, even here in this land, even here in Santa Barbara.  For we live in a time of broken ideals, a broken world, a fragmented humanity, which needs to be made whole.
    But of all the words of the Bible, those that have been profoundly significant to all of us associated with the purposes of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are to be found in the concluding chapters of the book of Deuteronomy.  In churches everywhere it is customary to read scripture from a book.  But in synagogues we Jews read every week from a parchment scroll we call Torah.  The Torah is written in Hebrew on a scroll which bears the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.  Each scroll is written by hand, the work of a scribe who reverently and lovingly copies every word of it.  According to a rigorous tradition the scribe must use a quill to serve him as a pen, so that the ink will touch with gentleness the pages of the parchment.  For the Torah and the Bible it introduces is a book of peace.  Only a quill, no metal, is permitted to be the instrument of the scribe’s work.  For metal is the material of violence, of war; it may not be used in composing the book of peace.
    Wherever the scribe has done his work throughout the centuries and neared the completion of it as he reached the closing chapters of the fifth book, the book of Deuteronomy, his quill has brought to the parchment these words of danger and challenge, which, ever since they were first spoken, have reverberated throughout human history: “See, I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed after you.”
    To speak of choosing the way of blessing and life compels us to reckon with all that threatens life in our time, but also to raise the fearful question as to whether our civilization, so visibly incoherent and in decline, is not itself, in the throes of death. (Is such a thing possible?)   We have been so infused with the conceit that we could escape the remorseless fate that has overtaken all previous social systems—that we with all of our sophistication, with all of our so-called exceptionalism, that we with our science and industry, our democracy, our ingenuity, could violate the iron law of history.  For history has surely shown that every civilization has perished sooner or later.  Human social systems, as Robert Sinai once wrote, with their members anxious, insecure, restless, swollen with pride, driven by the will to power and by inordinate appetites, corrupted by self-intoxication and self-deception, sooner or later have sinned against the laws of proportion and harmony and have plunged into decay and self-destruction.
    Now, I ask you, what of our civilization?  Small wonder that we should be uncertain.  What hurts and confuses us is the lurking suspicion that because of what we have done to the air and the earth and the cities and the children and to one another, we may possibly have been condemned to live in an age that will make no significant contribution to the human spirit.  What hurts and confuses us is the knowledge that a huge proportion of our resources, our ingenuity, our wisdom, our creative energy, leaves untouched the abiding problems of human beings who live in this troubled time.  Technological processes uninhibited by any human values other than the dream of total security have committed great and even smaller powers to collective mechanisms of destruction.  But the dream of total security has produced only the reality of total vulnerability.  As for nuclear weapons, and the several powers that possess them, we know, as I think it was George Kennan who once said, “nuclear weapons cannot bring us security, they can only bring revenge.”  If only we could banish this sterile dream and sadistic nightmare.
    “We have fed the heart on fantasies,” the poet Yeats once said, “the heart’s grown brutal from the fare/  More substance in our enmities/ Than in our love.” And all of this rooted in the conviction that nothing must stand in the way of the demonstration of our power.  “Power to coerce,” Norman Cousins once wrote, “power to harm, power that intimidates intelligence, power that conquers language and renders other forms of communication incoherent and irrelevant, power becoming a theology, admitting no other gods before it…”  Surely we know that the policies to which we have been so slavishly obedient end up, as always, constituting a form of violence against the poor—the ever growing kingdom of the poor,
    Yet we know there is another power within us, a power that will enable to us to say “NO” to the forces that have ruled over our thinking and feeling.  It is the power of our own critical intelligence, of our own decency, the power of the human spirit, a spiritual power present in every person, and it can be actualized.  And we shall have to actualize this power without pretending away our need for security, or that we do indeed live in a brutal world, brimming with anger and suspicion, and adversaries.
    There is a story members of the clergy like to tell.  It concerns a minister (it could be a priest, a rabbi, or an imam) who wants to stage an object lesson for the members of his/her congregation, and placed a lion and a lamb in a cage outside the entrance to the church.  And they lived together in peace.  And people from miles around came to see this remarkable phenomenon.  Finally, the mayor of the city, intrigued by this feat, sent a delegation to inquire how the minister pulled off this trick.  ‘Oh, “there’s no trick at all,” said the minister.  “All you have to do is put in a fresh lamb from time to time.”
    In the real world, we know very well, lions and lambs do not live together peacefully.  Even the prophet Isaiah, when he spoke of such a possibility, was referring to a messianic time.  And that’s where the rub is for us: how to face up to the truth of this real world of brutality, fear, mutual rivalry, and the need for security, and still retain hope, still work for something different.
    How shall we do that?  We need some troubled people.  We need agitated people.  We need men and women who are not ashamed to be sensitive and tender with one another.  We need those who are willing to become members of a community dedicated to each other’s fulfillment.  We need men and women who have the courage to be afraid, afraid of all those forces which have removed our humanity.  And as for the vast store of nuclear weapons, we need men and women who can maintain a firm conviction that it is not so wild a dream (to borrow the words of Norman Corwin) that we can negotiate, not only to do away with the nuclear arms race, but also that we can abolish nuclear arms, altogether.  We must not let this hope be crushed amidst the powers and the principalities.  And that is why the work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is so important.
    And something more, we need to give voice to the abandoned and forgotten, and preserve a vision that can transcend the dangerous imagery of victory and defeat, a vision of a genuinely humane society, in a genuinely decent world, that we can ultimately approach a great common tenderness.
    How shall I thank you for the gift of the honor you have given me?  What I could have said at the very beginning, and it might have been worthy and sufficient for this occasion, are Shakespeare’s words:
    “I can no other answer make, but thanks, and thanks, and ever thanks.”

  • 30th Annual Evening for Peace Honors Leonard Beerman

    Santa Barbara, CA – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will present its 2013 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Rabbi Leonard Beerman at the 30th Annual Evening for Peace, Sunday, Oct. 27, at La Pacifica Ballroom and Terrace, Four Seasons Resort, The Biltmore.

    The Distinguished Peace Leadership Award is presented annually to individuals who have demonstrated courageous leadership in the cause of peace. This year’s recipient, Rabbi Beerman, is a unique peace leader; a blend of intellect, integrity, compassion and a deep commitment to peace with justice. In 1979, he and Reverend George Regas co-founded the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Arms Race, an organization that awakened religious leaders and, through them, their congregations, to the realization that the abolition of nuclear weapons is a profoundly moral issue.

    As the rabbi of Leo Baeck Temple in West Los Angeles for 37 years before retiring in 1986, he could always be counted on to take a stand against human suffering. He counseled conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. Cesar Chavez spoke from his pulpit, as did Daniel Ellsberg just before his Pentagon Papers trial.

    For years, Rabbi Beerman has fought for peace and justice and brought conscience and faith to bear upon the many important peace and disarmament issues of our time. He has inspired countless women and men who have gone on to work on issues of peace and justice in their communities and beyond.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has a rich history of honoring remarkable leaders who pursue peace. Past recipients include the XIVth Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Ted Turner, Captain Jacques-Yves Cousteau, and Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan are among many other distinguished leaders.

    In addition to raising much-needed funds to support the Foundation’s work for a world free of nuclear weapons, the event’s program is designed to celebrate and encourage leadership for a more peaceful and just world. Over 80 students from local colleges and high schools will be able to attend this year’s event thanks to sponsors who have underwritten the cost of their tickets.

    The evening will begin at 5:30 P.M. with a reception and silent auction on the Biltmore’s La Pacifica Terrace to be followed by the awards program and dinner at 6:30 P.M. in the La Pacifica Ballroom.

    To learn more about the Evening For Peace, visit www.wagingpeace.org or call the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at 805-965-3443.

  • Statement on the Catastrophic Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons

    I am taking the floor on behalf of the following Member States, Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, DR Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, my own country, New Zealand, and the Observer State the Holy See.

    Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Past experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has amply demonstrated the unacceptable humanitarian consequences caused by the immense, uncontrollable destructive capability and indiscriminate nature of these weapons. The fact-based discussion that took place at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons convened by Norway last March allowed us to deepen our collective understanding of those consequences. A key message from experts and international organisations was that no State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims.

    The broad participation at the Conference, with attendance by 128 States, the ICRC, a number of UN humanitarian organisations and civil society, reflected the recognition that the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are a fundamental and global concern. We warmly welcome Mexico’s announcement of a follow-up Conference, scheduled for 13-14 February 2014. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of all States to participate in that Conference, which aims to further broaden and deepen understanding of this matter, particularly with regard to the longer-term consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation. We welcome civil society’s ongoing engagement.

    This work is essential, because the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons affect not only governments, but each and every citizen of our interconnected world. They have deep implications for human survival; for our environment; for socio-economic development; for our economies; and for the health of future generations. For these reasons, we firmly believe that awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

    This is not, of course, a new idea. The appalling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons became evident from the moment of their first use, and from that moment have motivated humanity’s aspirations for a world free from this threat, which have also inspired this statement. The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have been reflected in numerous UN resolutions, including the first resolution passed by this Assembly in 1946, and in multilateral instruments, including the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The world’s most eminent nuclear physicists observed as early as 1955 that nuclear weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind and that a war with these weapons could quite possibly put an end to the human race. The First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-1) stressed in 1978 that “nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilisation.” These expressions of profound concern remain as compelling as ever. In spite of this, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years.

    We are therefore encouraged that the humanitarian focus is now well established on the global agenda. The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”. That deep concern informed the November 26 2011 resolution of the Council of Delegates of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and the decision last year of this General Assembly to establish an open-ended working group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. It underlies the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ call to the international community, in August 2013, to emphasise the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons during any discussion of nuclear issues. Last month, at the High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, numerous leaders from around the world again evoked that deep concern as they called for progress to be made on nuclear disarmament. Today, this statement demonstrates the growing political support for the humanitarian focus.

    It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, cannot be adequately addressed. All efforts must be exerted to eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction.

    The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination. All States share the responsibility to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, to prevent their vertical and horizontal proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament, including through fulfilling the objectives of the NPT and achieving its universality.

    We welcome the renewed resolve of the international community, together with the ICRC and international humanitarian organisations, to address the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. By raising awareness about this issue, civil society has a crucial role to play side-by-side with governments as we fulfil our responsibilities. We owe it to future generations to work together to do just that, and in doing so, to rid our world of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.