Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear weapons

  • Nuremberg and Nuclear Weapons

    The principal message of the Nuremberg trials is that individuals are responsible for what they do, and will be held accountable for committing serious crimes under international law. At Nuremberg, these serious crimes included crimes against peace (that is, planning, preparing for, or participating in acts of aggressive warfare), war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

    One of the great ironies of history or perhaps it is not such a great irony is that the Charter establishing the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was signed on August 8, 1945. That was just three months after the German surrender. More importantly, it was just two days after the first nuclear weapon was used in warfare on the city of Hiroshima, and one day prior to a nuclear weapon being used on the city of Nagasaki. The nuclear weapon used on Hiroshima, with an equivalent force of some 15 kilotons of TNT, killed some 90,000 people immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki, with an equivalent force of some 20 kilotons of TNT, killed some 40,000 people immediately and some 70,000 by the end of 1945.

    It has been pointed out that the number of people who died immediately from the use of each of these nuclear weapons was less than the number of people who died in Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945 as a result of U.S. bombing raids. This number is estimated at approximately 100,000. The major difference between the Tokyo bombings and those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the former took nearly a thousand sorties to accomplish, while the destruction of the latter two cities took only one bomb each.

    I think it is reasonable to speculate that if the Germans had had two or three atomic bombs, as we did at that time, and had used them on European cities prior to being defeated in the Second World War, we would have attempted to hold accountable those who created, authorized, and carried out these bombings. We would likely have considered the use of these weapons on cities by the Nazi leaders as among the most serious of their crimes.

    The irony of history, of course, is that the Germans did not develop nor use atomic weapons, and thus this issue never came before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, or before any other international tribunal. The record of the past 50 years reflects the consequences of this lack of accountability, namely, the nuclear arms race pursued by the United States and the former Soviet Union, which lasted until the end of the Cold War in approximately 1990.

    The question which I want to address is not whether war crimes were committed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Under the rules of international humanitarian law they were, and they were also committed by the bombings of London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. The primary targets of all these bombings were civilians, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians has always in modern times been understood to be a clear violation of the laws of war.

    Nuclear Weapons and International Law

    The more relevant question has to do with where we stand today. Not long ago, on July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice in the Hague issued an opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Actually, two questions were placed before the Court for advisory opinions. The first question, posed by the World Health Organization in May 1993, asked: “In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law?”

    The second question, put to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1994, asked: “Is the threat or the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?”

    The International Court of Justice found that the question asked by the World Health Organization, as a legal question, fell outside the scope of activities of the organization, and thus declined to accept jurisdiction. On the question posed by the United Nations General Assembly, however, the Court did find jurisdiction, and issued an advisory opinion.

    In a multi-part answer to the question, the Court found the following: “…that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.

    “However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

    In reaching this opinion, the Court dramatically reduced the possible circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be threatened or used in conformity with international law. The Court left open only the slim possibility of legality under “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.” Even in this circumstance, the Court did not say that such use would be legal; it said only that it could not determine legality under these conditions. Judge Bedjaoui, the president of the Court, said in his declaration upon releasing the Court’s opinion, “I cannot insist strongly enough on the fact that the inability of the Court to go beyond the statement it made can in no way be interpreted as a partially-opened door through which it recognizes the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”

    Judge Bedjaoui went further to describe nuclear weapons as “blind weapons” that “destabilize, by their very nature, humanitarian law, the law of distinguishing in the use of weapons.” He continued, “Nuclear weapons, absolute evil, destabilize humanitarian law in so far as the law of the lesser evil. Thus, the very existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a great defiance (challenge) to humanitarian law itself…. Nuclear war and humanitarian law seem, consequently, two antithesis which radically exclude each other, the existence of one necessarily supposing the non-existence of the other.”

    Where does this leave us today? Although the opinion of the Court is an advisory opinion, it is the most authoritative statement of international law on this question, and must be taken seriously. Thus far, however, there have been no statements made by any of the declared or undeclared nuclear weapons states indicating that they plan any changes in their nuclear policies as a result of the Court’s opinion.

    Individual Accountability

    We know what the Principles of Nuremberg tell us about individual accountability. The primary principle is that “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.” The fact that there is no penalty for the act under internal law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Nor does the fact that the person acted as a Head of State or as a responsible government official relieve that person of responsibility. Nor does the fact that the person acted pursuant to superior orders, so long as a choice was in fact possible to him, relieve him of responsibility.

    It was the United States, along with the U.K., France, and Russia, that created the Nuremberg Principles after the Second World War by holding Nazi and other Axis leaders accountable for their crimes under international law. I submit that if we want to create a world community that lives under international law in the 21st Century, we must apply the Nuremberg Principles to one and all, equally and without prejudice. That means we must apply these Principles to ourselves as well as to others. If the threat or use of nuclear weapons is, in fact, illegal under international law in virtually every conceivable circumstance, then we must act accordingly and neither use nor threaten the use of these weapons. Instead, we must dismantle our nuclear arsenal subject to agreement with other nuclear weapons states. In the meantime, we must explain to all military personnel with responsibilities for nuclear weapons the criminality under international law attendant to the threat or use of these weapons.

    Military organizations must operate under the law, and that clearly includes the international law of armed conflict. If military organizations do not operate under the law, then are they any better than state-organized thugs? It was for violating the laws of war at My Lai that Lt. Calley was tried and convicted. Lt. Calley’s crimes, terrible though they were, would pale in comparison to the crime of again using nuclear weapons on cities filled with innocent people.

    The International Court of Justice added to their opinion a clarification of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Court unanimously found that: “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.”

    The Court has clearly indicated that the nuclear weapons states have an obligation to negotiate in good faith not only for nuclear disarmament, but for nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects” and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion. In the aftermath of the Cold War, we have been moving far too slowly to attain this goal. It is a necessary goal so that no other city will ever again have to face the consequences of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the future of humanity will not be jeopardized.

    The Need for a Permanent International Criminal Court

    Even if the threat or use of nuclear weapons is unlawful under international law, however, there currently exists no tribunal where persons committing such acts can be brought to account. One of the great shortcomings of the current international institutional structure is the lack of a permanent International Criminal Court. Two Ad Hoc Tribunals have been created by the United Nations Security Council one for the former Yugoslavia and one for Rwanda. The jurisdiction of both of these tribunals, however, is limited by time and space. It is perhaps ironic that while the effects of nuclear weapons are unlimited by either time or space, the jurisdiction of our international criminal tribunals is so limited.

    Were nuclear weapons to be used by accident or design, the consequences would be horrible beyond our deepest fears. Nazis and other war criminals were convicted and punished in part for bringing human beings to the incinerators of the Holocaust. Nuclear weapons may be conceived of as portable incinerators portable crematoria, if you will that bring incinerators to the people. In my view, the silence of the American, Russian, British, French, and Chinese people in the face of these potentially genocidal or omnicidal weapons is as disquieting as the silence of the Germans in the face of Nazi atrocities. Yet none of the people in countries possessing nuclear weapons today are facing the same fearful authoritarian rule that the Nazis imposed upon the Germans during World War II.

    For many, perhaps most, people in nuclear weapons states today, nuclear weapons are not perceived as a critical issue. They are largely ignored. However, if they were to be used again, I think future historians if there were any would be very critical of our lack of commitment to ridding the world of these terrible weapons.

    We have the opportunity, in fact the responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles, to speak out against these genocidal weapons, but for the most part we do not do so. We must break the silence that surrounds our reliance upon these weapons of mass destruction. A hopeful sign recently occurred at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco when General Lee Butler, a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, broke his personal silence and made a ringing plea to abolish nuclear weapons. “We can do better,” he said, “than condone a world in which nuclear weapons are enshrined as the ultimate arbiter of conflict. The price already paid is too dear, the risks run too great. The nuclear beast must be chained, its soul expunged, its lair laid waste. The task is daunting but we cannot shrink from it. The opportunity may not come again.”

    It is within our grasp to end the nuclear weapons era, and begin the 21st Century with a reaffirmation of the Nuremberg Principles.

    Steps That Need To Be Taken

    1. The following confidence building measures proposed by the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons:

    • Taking nuclear forces off alert;
    • Removal of warheads from delivery vehicles;
    • Ending deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons;
    • Initiating negotiations to further reduce United States and Russian nuclear arsenals; and
    • Agreement amongst the nuclear weapons states of reciprocal no-first-use undertakings, and of a non-use undertaking by them in relation to the non-nuclear weapons states.

    2. International agreement by the year 2000 on a Nuclear Weapons Convention that, under strict international control, would eliminate all nuclear weapons within a reasonable period of time and prohibit their possession.

    3. The establishment by treaty of a permanent International Criminal Court to hold all individuals, regardless of their rank or nationality, accountable for acts constituting crimes under international law. Considerable progress has been made in preparing such a treaty at the United Nations. It may be hoped that this treaty will be ready to be opened for signatures in 1998, and certainly by 1999 when a third International Peace Conference is convened in the Hague.

  • On the Abolition 2000 Statement

    Introduction

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference in April and May 1995 provided an opportunity for the nuclear weapons states to commit themselves to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. These states, however, were unwilling to make this commitment, and were intent only on the indefinite extension of the NPT.

    Many citizen action groups gathered at the Conference viewed the position of the nuclear weapons states on indefinite extension as the equivalent of an indefinite extension of the status quo, one that provided special nuclear status to the five declared nuclear weapons states (U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China). These citizen action groups from throughout the world formed themselves into an Abolition Caucus. From this Caucus came the Abolition 2000 Statement calling for “definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.”

    This Statement became the founding document of the Abolition 2000 Network. This Network has now grown to over 600 citizen action groups on six continents. These groups are actively working in ten working groups to accomplish the 11-point program. The Statement is set forth below.

    Abolition 2000 Statement

    A secure and livable world for our children and grandchildren and all future generations requires that we achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and redress the environmental degradation and human suffering that is the legacy of fifty years of nuclear weapons testing and production.

    Further, the inextricable link between the “peaceful” and warlike uses of nuclear technologies and the threat to future generations inherent in creation and use of long-lived radioactive materials must be recognized. We must move toward reliance on clean, safe, renewable forms of energy production that do not provide the materials for weapons of mass destruction and do not poison the environment for thousands of centuries. The true “inalienable” right is not to nuclear energy, but to life, liberty and security of person in a world free of nuclear weapons.

    We recognize that a nuclear weapons free world must be achieved carefully and in a step by step manner. We are convinced of its technological feasibility. Lack of political will, especially on the part of the nuclear weapons states, is the only true barrier. As chemical and biological weapons are prohibited, so must nuclear weapons be prohibited.

    We call upon all states particularly the nuclear weapons states, declared and de facto to take the following steps to achieve nuclear weapons abolition. We further urge the states parties to the NPT to demand binding commitments by the declared nuclear weapons states to implement these measures:

    1) Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 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.*

    2) Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

    3) Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.

    4) Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.

    5) Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    6) Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    7) Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.

    8) Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.

    9) Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.

    10) Establish an international energy agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.

    11) Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.

    A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.

    * The Convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The Convention could also incorporate the measures listed above which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the Convention would replace the NPT.

    Analysis

    The Abolition 2000 Statement was a major achievement of the citizen action groups supporting the elimination of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. It has provided a point of focus and agreement for these citizens groups from throughout the world.

    The 11-point program to be implemented by the nuclear weapons states is discussed below.

    1. Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Abolition Convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for verification and enforcement.

    Entering into a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000 is the key point in the Statement. This doesn’t mean that all nuclear weapons will be eliminated by the year 2000. It means that the commitment to their total elimination will be made in the form of a treaty, similar to the treaties that have outlawed biological weapons (Biological Weapons Convention, 1972) and chemical weapons (Chemical Weapons Convention, 1995) by the year 2000. The opportunity should not be missed to begin the new millennium with a commitment to a nuclear weapons free world. The year 2000 is a turning point for humanity, a point by which we should leave behind us forever the threat of nuclear annihilation.

    In a footnote to the Abolition 2000 Statement, some direction for the proposed Convention is provided: “The Convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The Convention could also incorporate the measures listed above [that is, points 2 through 11 of the Statement] which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the Convention would replace the NPT.”

    Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate, has been calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, similar in form to the Chemical Weapons Convention, for many years. In his Nobel Lecture, he argued, “Entering into negotiations does not commit the parties. There is no reason why they should not begin now. If not now, when?”1

    The nuclear weapons states did not begin negotiations toward a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons in 1995. Instead, they succeeded in having the Non-Proliferation Treaty extended indefinitely with very few conditions. It is not too late, however, to complete negotiations for a new treaty by the year 2000. We must encourage them to begin; we must demand that they begin. As Professor Rotblat states with simple eloquence: “If not now, when?”

    Professor Rotblat continued his Nobel Lecture with an appeal to the nuclear weapons states: “So I appeal to the nuclear powers to abandon the out-of-date thinking of the Cold War and take a fresh look. Above all, I appeal to them to bear in mind the long-term threat that nuclear weapons pose to humankind and to begin action towards their elimination. Remember your duty to humanity.”2

    2. Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

    It has been argued by distinguished military leaders and security analysts that nuclear weapons have no other purpose than to deter a nuclear attack.3 If nuclear weapons states accept this position, then it should not be difficult for them to make a pledge not to be first to use nuclear weapons. If all states agreed not to use nuclear weapons first, this would be equivalent to a pledge not to use these weapons. Yet, at present, only China has made an unconditional pledge not to use nuclear weapons first.

    A similar point was also made by Professor Rotblat in his Nobel Lecture. “Several studies, and a number of public statements by senior military and political personalities, testify that except for disputes between the present nuclear states all military conflicts, as well as threats to peace, can be dealt with using conventional weapons. This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack. All nuclear weapons states should now recognize that this is so, and declare in Treaty form that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. This would open the way to the gradual, mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals, down to zero.”4

    The Abolition 2000 Statement calls for nuclear weapons states to go beyond a no first use pledge, and make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. However, even if nuclear weapons states would agree to an unconditional “no first use” pledge, that would be an important step forward.

    3. Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.

    The nuclear weapons states promised a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. This promise was made again in the non-binding agreement that supplemented the decision to extend the NPT indefinitely in 1995. This agreement committed the nuclear weapons states to completing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996. On September 10, 1995 the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and was opened for signatures on September 24, 1956. It has been signed by over a hundred countries including the five declared nuclear weapons states. India, however, has said that it will not sign the Treaty until the nuclear weapons states commit themselves to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and India’s ratification of the Treaty is required for the Treaty to enter into force.

    The Treaty agreed upon will still allow for laboratory and sub-critical tests. Thus, it cannot be expected to be fully successful in “precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.” To do this, the Treaty would have had to go beyond prohibiting underground nuclear weapons tests, and have prohibited testing in all environments, including the nuclear weapons laboratories.

    4. Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.

    In the Non-Proliferation Treaty the nuclear weapons states promised to pursue good faith negotiations for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Clearly, to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems at this point would be in violation of that promise. It would also be unnecessary and provocative. The nuclear weapons states have already begun the process of withdrawing and disabling nuclear weapons systems. Missiles have been removed from their silos, and destroyed with much fanfare. This process needs to continue, and should not be undermined by the deployment of any new or additional nuclear weapons systems.

    5. Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    Far too much weapons-usable nuclear material already exists in the world. It takes only a few pounds of plutonium to produce a nuclear weapon, and perhaps 20 pounds of highly enriched uranium. While the required amounts of weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed to make nuclear weapons can be measured in pounds, the stockpiles of these materials can now be measured in metric tonnes.

    As of 1990, globally there was some 250 metric tonnes of plutonium in the military sector, of which 178 tonnes was in nuclear warheads. There was some 1300 metric tonnes of highly enriched uranium in the military sector, including 810 tonnes in warheads. In the civilian sector, there was over 600 metric tonnes of plutonium and 20 tonnes of highly enriched uranium. Of the civilian sector plutonium, 532 tonnes was in spent reactor fuel, and thus not readily converted to weapons use without reprocessing.5

    A study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War pointed out that “Operation of nuclear power plants is rapidly increasing the world’s stocks of civilian plutonium. The cumulative stock of plutonium discharged from reactors worldwide is projected to reach about 1,400 metric tonnes at the end of the year 2000 and about 2,100 metric tonnes at the end of 2010.”6

    If we are to have any hope of ending the nuclear weapons era, we must gain control of all weapons-grade radioactive materials. The first step in doing this is to halt the production and reprocessing of such materials. To be effective, this must be done in both the military and civilian sectors.

    6. Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    To end the nuclear weapons era, all weapons-usable nuclear materials must be accounted for, monitored, and protected against diversion. The study by the International Physicians on this subject stated, “Present arrangements for controlling fissile material are clearly inadequate. They place no limits on any of the fissile material activities of the nuclear-weapons states. They limit the civilian fissile material activities of some small and relatively weak states on a discriminatory, ad hoc basis, while allowing more powerful states to accumulate large amounts of fissile material.”7

    To be effective in controlling weapons-usable fissile materials, all states must be subject to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards. The most powerful states, including the nuclear weapons states, can no longer reserve for themselves the special “privilege” of keeping their nuclear weapons materials outside the bounds of international inspections and controls.

    7. Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.

    To stop the further development of new nuclear weapons systems will require an end to researching, designing, developing and testing nuclear weapons in every way, including in laboratory experiments. When the French conducted a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific in 1995 and early 1996, the reason they gave for doing so was to gather information for future laboratory tests. The U.S. has said all along that it is planning to conduct non- nuclear tests and, in fact, is planning to spend many billions of dollars in building new, sophisticated, and expensive equipment for future nuclear testing. The only way to close this loophole is by international agreement and international monitoring of nuclear weapons laboratories and test sites. The test sites themselves should be closed down. The former Soviet test site in Kazahkstan, and the French test site in Polynesia have both been closed. The only remaining test sites are in Novaya Zemlya (Russia), Lop Nor (China) and Nevada (U.S. and Britain).

    8. Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.

    Since the Abolition 2000 Statement was adopted in April 1995, nuclear weapons free zones have been established for Southeast Asia and Africa. Following the completion of a series of six French nuclear weapons tests on the Pacific atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa, the U.S., U.K. and France have all agreed to abide by the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. A treaty signed in December 1995 by Southeast Asian countries declares an area stretching from Myanmar to the west, Philippines in the east, Laos and Vietnam in the north and Indonesia in the south as a nuclear free zone. The Treaty of Pelindaba, signed in Cairo in June 1996, made Africa a nuclear weapons free zone. These zones, covering most of the Earth’s southern hemisphere, prohibit the development, manufacturing, acquisition, possession, testing, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons within the designated areas. What they have not prohibited is transit of nuclear weapons by submarines and surface ships through international waters in their regions.8

    9. Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.

    On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice in the Hague rendered its opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.9 The Court concluded that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles of humanitarian law.” It also declared that “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.”

    The Court found, however, that in “view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal,” that it was unable to reach a definitive conclusion with regard to “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.” Thus, the Court left open only the slimmest possibility of an exception to the general illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    Based on the Court’s decision, Commander Robert Green, a retired Officer of the British Royal Navy and a member of the World Court Project that promoted the World Court decision, said, “With this remarkable decision, I could never have used a nuclear weapon legally. This places a duty on the military to review their whole attitude toward nuclear weapons, which are now effectively in the same category as chemical and biological weapons.”

    10. Establish an International Energy Agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.

    One of the important missing agencies in the international system is an International Sustainable Energy Agency that promotes and supports development of sustainable and environmentally safe forms of energy. The sun provides a virtually inexhaustible source of energy. Further development of the technology to harness the sun’s energy in a cost-effective manner must become a major international priority as well as technologies to develop wind, tidal, and biomass resources. An International Sustainable Energy Agency could oversee these efforts.

    If such an Agency succeeds in its mission, it will not be necessary for states to rely upon the continued use of energy from nuclear reactors, thereby eliminating a major source of the radioactive materials that endanger human and other life forms and that could be reprocessed for use in the creation of nuclear weapons.

    11. Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.

    Citizens and non-governmental organizations have a role to play in planning and monitoring the process of eliminating nuclear weapons. This is not a job for governments alone. Citizens and citizen action groups have been active and creative in calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. There will undoubtedly be ways in which individual citizens and groups of citizens can play a role in advancing the cause of a nuclear weapons free world.

    The President of the NPT Review and Extension Conference, Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, praised the work of NGOs in that Conference and called for a more active role by these groups in the three preparatory meetings leading up to the next NPT Review Conference in the year 2000.

    Citizen groups from all over the world could begin now to inventory all nuclear materials in their country or region, thereby educating themselves about local hazards and providing a genuine service to the international community.

    The Nuclear Weapons Convention working group of the Abolition 2000 Network has been meeting to draft a treaty that takes into consideration all of the elements enumerated in the Abolition 2000 Statement.

    Joseph Rotblat has called for an active role for citizens from throughout the world in monitoring compliance with a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In addition to technological verification of compliance, he has called for what he calls “societal verification.” Professor Rotblat has the following to say about “Societal verification”:

    As the name implies, all members of the community would be involved in ensuring that a treaty signed by their own government is not violated. The main type of societal verification is what we call `citizen reporting.’ Underthis, every citizen would have the right and the duty to notify an office of theinternational authority in the country about any attempt to violate the treaty. In order to be effective, this right and duty would have to be written into the national law of the country.

    “We propose that whenever we have an international treaty but particularly relating to nuclear weapons it should contain a specific clause demanding that all the signatory states enact this type of law, and so make it the obligation of the citizens to carry out this task. We believe that this would be particularly effective in the case of nuclear weapons, partly because people instinctively abhor nuclear weapons, and partly because in almost every country there are anti-nuclear campaigns. We are convinced there will be enough people in every country who will make sure that the treaty is not being violated.10

    Conclusion

    The Statement concludes, “A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.”

    This conclusion juxtaposed the demand of the nuclear weapons states for an indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the need for a definite and unconditional commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states prevailed at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in getting an indefinite extension of the Treaty. Whether the initiators of the Abolition 2000 Statement will prevail in attaining the “definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons” will depend upon how many committed individuals throughout the world will work together to achieve this goal.

    The Abolition 2000 Statement provides a guideline for actions to be taken to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. The primary responsibility for taking these actions lies with the nuclear weapons states, but the responsibility for assuring that the nuclear weapons states take these actions lies with citizens. Each of us has a role to play.

    __________________

    Notes

    1. Rotblat, Joseph, “The Nobel Lecture Given by the Nobel Peace Laureate 1995 Joseph Rotblat,” The Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, 1995.

    2. Ibid.

    3. See, for example, “A Four-Step Program to Nuclear Disarmament” by the Henry L. Stimson Center, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 52, No. 2, March/April 1996, pp. 52-55.

    The report states: “The only necessary function for nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear threats to the population and territory of the United States, to U.S. forces abroad, and to certain friendly states.”

    Members of the Stimson Center project include General Andrew J. Goodpaster, General William F. Burns, General Charles A. Horner, and General W. Y. Smith.

    4. Rotblat, Op. cit.

    5. Albright, David, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1992, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 197.

    6. Thompson, Gordon, “Opportunities for International Control of Weapons-Usable fissile Material,” International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, ENWE Paper #1, January 1994, p. 7.

    7. Thompson, op. cit. p. 10.

    8. See, Krieger, David, “Denuclearization of the Oceans: Linking Our Common Heritage with Our Common Future,” Global Security Study, No. 21, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, March, 1996.

    9. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,” July 8, 1996.

    10. Rotblat, Joseph, “The Feasibility of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World,” Global Security Study, No. 16, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, August 1993.

  • Nuremberg and Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerThe principal message of the Nuremberg trials is that individuals are responsible for what they do, and will be held accountable for committing serious crimes under international law. At Nuremberg, these serious crimes included crimes against peace (that is, planning, preparing for, or participating in acts of aggressive warfare), war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

    One of the great ironies of history or perhaps it is not such a great irony is that the Charter establishing the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was signed on August 8, 1945. That was just three months after the German surrender. More importantly, it was just two days after the first nuclear weapon was used in warfare on the city of Hiroshima, and one day prior to a nuclear weapon being used on the city of Nagasaki. The nuclear weapon used on Hiroshima, with an equivalent force of some 15 kilotons of TNT, killed some 90,000 people immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki, with an equivalent force of some 20 kilotons of TNT, killed some 40,000 people immediately and some 70,000 by the end of 1945.

    It has been pointed out that the number of people who died immediately from the use of each of these nuclear weapons was less than the number of people who died in Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945 as a result of U.S. bombing raids. This number is estimated at approximately 100,000. The major difference between the Tokyo bombings and those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the former took nearly a thousand sorties to accomplish, while the destruction of the latter two cities took only one bomb each.

    I think it is reasonable to speculate that if the Germans had had two or three atomic bombs, as we did at that time, and had used them on European cities prior to being defeated in the Second World War, we would have attempted to hold accountable those who created, authorized, and carried out these bombings. We would likely have considered the use of these weapons on cities by the Nazi leaders as among the most serious of their crimes.

    The irony of history, of course, is that the Germans did not develop nor use atomic weapons, and thus this issue never came before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, or before any other international tribunal. The record of the past 50 years reflects the consequences of this lack of accountability, namely, the nuclear arms race pursued by the United States and the former Soviet Union, which lasted until the end of the Cold War in approximately 1990.

    The question which I want to address is not whether war crimes were committed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Under the rules of international humanitarian law they were, and they were also committed by the bombings of London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. The primary targets of all these bombings were civilians, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians has always in modern times been understood to be a clear violation of the laws of war.

    Nuclear Weapons and International Law

    The more relevant question has to do with where we stand today. Not long ago, on July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice in the Hague issued an opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Actually, two questions were placed before the Court for advisory opinions. The first question, posed by the World Health Organization in May 1993, asked: “In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law?”

    The second question, put to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1994, asked: “Is the threat or the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?”

    The International Court of Justice found that the question asked by the World Health Organization, as a legal question, fell outside the scope of activities of the organization, and thus declined to accept jurisdiction. On the question posed by the United Nations General Assembly, however, the Court did find jurisdiction, and issued an advisory opinion.

    In a multi-part answer to the question, the Court found the following: “…that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.

    “However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

    In reaching this opinion, the Court dramatically reduced the possible circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be threatened or used in conformity with international law. The Court left open only the slim possibility of legality under “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.” Even in this circumstance, the Court did not say that such use would be legal; it said only that it could not determine legality under these conditions. Judge Bedjaoui, the president of the Court, said in his declaration upon releasing the Court’s opinion, “I cannot insist strongly enough on the fact that the inability of the Court to go beyond the statement it made can in no way be interpreted as a partially-opened door through which it recognizes the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”

    Judge Bedjaoui went further to describe nuclear weapons as “blind weapons” that “destabilize, by their very nature, humanitarian law, the law of distinguishing in the use of weapons.” He continued, “Nuclear weapons, absolute evil, destabilize humanitarian law in so far as the law of the lesser evil. Thus, the very existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a great defiance (challenge) to humanitarian law itself…. Nuclear war and humanitarian law seem, consequently, two antithesis which radically exclude each other, the existence of one necessarily supposing the non-existence of the other.”

    Where does this leave us today? Although the opinion of the Court is an advisory opinion, it is the most authoritative statement of international law on this question, and must be taken seriously. Thus far, however, there have been no statements made by any of the declared or undeclared nuclear weapons states indicating that they plan any changes in their nuclear policies as a result of the Court’s opinion.

    Individual Accountability

    We know what the Principles of Nuremberg tell us about individual accountability. The primary principle is that “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.” The fact that there is no penalty for the act under internal law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Nor does the fact that the person acted as a Head of State or as a responsible government official relieve that person of responsibility. Nor does the fact that the person acted pursuant to superior orders, so long as a choice was in fact possible to him, relieve him of responsibility.

    It was the United States, along with the U.K., France, and Russia, that created the Nuremberg Principles after the Second World War by holding Nazi and other Axis leaders accountable for their crimes under international law. I submit that if we want to create a world community that lives under international law in the 21st Century, we must apply the Nuremberg Principles to one and all, equally and without prejudice. That means we must apply these Principles to ourselves as well as to others. If the threat or use of nuclear weapons is, in fact, illegal under international law in virtually every conceivable circumstance, then we must act accordingly and neither use nor threaten the use of these weapons. Instead, we must dismantle our nuclear arsenal subject to agreement with other nuclear weapons states. In the meantime, we must explain to all military personnel with responsibilities for nuclear weapons the criminality under international law attendant to the threat or use of these weapons.

    Military organizations must operate under the law, and that clearly includes the international law of armed conflict. If military organizations do not operate under the law, then are they any better than state-organized thugs? It was for violating the laws of war at My Lai that Lt. Calley was tried and convicted. Lt. Calley’s crimes, terrible though they were, would pale in comparison to the crime of again using nuclear weapons on cities filled with innocent people.

    The International Court of Justice added to their opinion a clarification of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Court unanimously found that: “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.”

    The Court has clearly indicated that the nuclear weapons states have an obligation to negotiate in good faith not only for nuclear disarmament, but for nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects” and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion. In the aftermath of the Cold War, we have been moving far too slowly to attain this goal. It is a necessary goal so that no other city will ever again have to face the consequences of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the future of humanity will not be jeopardized.

    The Need for a Permanent International Criminal Court

    Even if the threat or use of nuclear weapons is unlawful under international law, however, there currently exists no tribunal where persons committing such acts can be brought to account. One of the great shortcomings of the current international institutional structure is the lack of a permanent International Criminal Court. Two Ad Hoc Tribunals have been created by the United Nations Security Council one for the former Yugoslavia and one for Rwanda. The jurisdiction of both of these tribunals, however, is limited by time and space. It is perhaps ironic that while the effects of nuclear weapons are unlimited by either time or space, the jurisdiction of our international criminal tribunals is so limited.

    Were nuclear weapons to be used by accident or design, the consequences would be horrible beyond our deepest fears. Nazis and other war criminals were convicted and punished in part for bringing human beings to the incinerators of the Holocaust. Nuclear weapons may be conceived of as portable incinerators portable crematoria, if you will that bring incinerators to the people. In my view, the silence of the American, Russian, British, French, and Chinese people in the face of these potentially genocidal or omnicidal weapons is as disquieting as the silence of the Germans in the face of Nazi atrocities. Yet none of the people in countries possessing nuclear weapons today are facing the same fearful authoritarian rule that the Nazis imposed upon the Germans during World War II.

    For many, perhaps most, people in nuclear weapons states today, nuclear weapons are not perceived as a critical issue. They are largely ignored. However, if they were to be used again, I think future historians if there were any would be very critical of our lack of commitment to ridding the world of these terrible weapons.

    We have the opportunity, in fact the responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles, to speak out against these genocidal weapons, but for the most part we do not do so. We must break the silence that surrounds our reliance upon these weapons of mass destruction. A hopeful sign recently occurred at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco when General Lee Butler, a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, broke his personal silence and made a ringing plea to abolish nuclear weapons. “We can do better,” he said, “than condone a world in which nuclear weapons are enshrined as the ultimate arbiter of conflict. The price already paid is too dear, the risks run too great. The nuclear beast must be chained, its soul expunged, its lair laid waste. The task is daunting but we cannot shrink from it. The opportunity may not come again.”

    It is within our grasp to end the nuclear weapons era, and begin the 21st Century with a reaffirmation of the Nuremberg Principles.

    Steps That Need To Be Taken

    1. The following confidence building measures proposed by the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons:
      • Taking nuclear forces off alert;
      • Removal of warheads from delivery vehicles;
      • Ending deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons;
      • Initiating negotiations to further reduce United States and Russian nuclear arsenals; and
      • Agreement amongst the nuclear weapons states of reciprocal no-first-use undertakings, and of a non-use undertaking by them in relation to the non-nuclear weapons states.
    2. International agreement by the year 2000 on a Nuclear Weapons Convention that, under strict international control, would eliminate all nuclear weapons within a reasonable period of time and prohibit their possession.
    3. The establishment by treaty of a permanent International Criminal Court to hold all individuals, regardless of their rank or nationality, accountable for acts constituting crimes under international law. Considerable progress has been made in preparing such a treaty at the United Nations. It may be hoped that this treaty will be ready to be opened for signatures in 1998, and certainly by 1999 when a third International Peace Conference is convened in the Hague.

  • Building a Peaceful World

    The end of the Cold War and recent arms reduction agree ments are encouraging signs for peace. In order to fur ther help in building a peaceful world, this paper identifies five major peace forces. In this paper, we attempt to show why these five modern forces are major factors for peace and how they can be used by policy makers in building a sustainable peaceful world. The five factors are equally significant and closely interrelated and have a cumulative impact.

    As with the force of gravity, we are little aware of the forces for peace until they are called to our attention. To better understand and use them we need to think about them on a large-scale and long-term basis.

    Peace Force No. 1 DEMOCRACY *

    Democracy is a powerful force for peace because there has never been a war between independent freely-elected democracies.1 Therefore, if all of the countries of the world became democracies, it is possible we could have a world without war.

    Not only do democracies not fight one another, they fight many fewer wars than nondemocracies. All nations that were independent from 1950 through 1991 and did not change from democracy to nondemocracy or vice versa during the study period were assessed. It was found that only 23 percent of the democracies compared with 72 percent of the nondemocracies were involved in foreign wars. It was also found that there were no internal wars or coups in the democracies, while 90 percent of the nondemocracies had internal wars or violent military coups.2

    R. J. Rummel in his five volume study was able to rigorously show further that not only do democracies not fight one another but that democracies are far less violent than other governments. He wrote, “Of the more than 119 million victims of genocide, killed in cold blood in our century, virtually all were killed by nondemocracies, especially totalitarian ones.” 3

    It is encouraging, therefore, to know that the number of democratic countries in the world has grown from none two centuries ago to a majority (89) now. In addition, there are 32 countries in transition. 4

    Examples of how to help more countries become democratic:

    • Providing economic aid to poorer countries can im prove their economic well-being. In general, as the health, ed u ca tion and economic well-being of a country’s citizens improve, the probability of the nation becoming a democracy increases.5
    • In a 1991 retreat, leaders of the 50-nation Common wealth promised to promote democracy and just gov ern ment. This is a weak commitment, and an effort should be made to have all nations link foreign aid to the human rights records of developing countries, as Britain and Canada have indicated their intent to do. 6
    • Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto proposes an association of emerging democracies. She suggests that an association could share political experience to help members develop democratic methods and exert moral pres sure on nations that violate human rights. 7
    • The U.S. Congress has created and funded the Na tion al Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-private group, to openly help the growth of democracies. This organization and similar organizations have been more effective in helping countries develop democractic governments than the covert and violent activities of the CIA. 8

    *Democracy, in the Studies cited here, includes only independent countries whose legislative bodies and head of government are elected by majority vote from two or more opposing choices by secret ballot, where there is freedom of speech.

    Peace Force No. 2 EQUITABLE COMMERCE

    International trade and investments can be a force for peace if they are based on long-term fairness and mutual trust. If international trade is based on economic exploitation or is based mostly on arms trade it can be a force for war as described in the latter part of this section.

    Modern mass marketing is a powerful force for peace because such commerce is much more profitable when the world is peaceful. Continental markets are much more ef fi cient for mass marketing than small, divided ones. Modern commerce, because of its highly technical nature, can require dependable, long-term, large-scale commitments.

    Most of us are unaware that prosperous modern day living is dependent upon international trade and in vest ment for a vast array of parts for use in agriculture, industry, medicine, communication, and computers. For example, probably few people are aware that British farmers only produce enough food by themselves to support 12 million of Britain’s 56 million people. 9 The research costs and risks of creating and using new highly technical products has become so great that companies look to long-term in ter na tion al partnerships to carry out the work.

    International investments, built on international trade, are a further force for harmony. A vast number of large and small businesses are involved in foreign investments and no one likes to lose their investments. In order to illustrate how large international investments have become, consider the amount invested in the United States by 1990 by the fol low ing countries: Britain, $108 billion; Japan, $83 billion; Neth er lands, $64 billion; Germany, $28 billion; France, $20 billion; and Switzerland, $17 billion. 10

    Paralleling the growth of modern commerce in the world has been the development of vast regions that are at peace with each other. For example, in the 1800s the growing area of internal peace on the North American continent paralleled the growth of railroads as they made mass marketing possible. The growing zone of internal peace started in the Northeast and moved south then westward as large scale trade grew.

    Having a large area, such as the North American continent, with no battles within any of its parts is new to the long history of the world. For instance, prior to the current long peace, the United States fought nearly 2,000 battles in its first hundred years. And now there have been no battles fought on the North American continent for more than 100 years. 11

    The large zone of peace in North America was no accident. It is significant that ethnic and religious groups that are fighting one another in various parts of the world generally are not fighting one another where they live together in more economically developed areas, e.g. North America, Western Europe, Australia.

    Since World War II, there has been an explosive increase in global trade. World trade has increased more than 10 times.12 As world commerce has grown, the number of countries at peace with each other has grown accordingly. Countries at peace with each other for the past 40 years or longer include Canada, the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, Japan, Tai wan, Australia, New Zealand and the countries of Western Europe. All of these countries have developed a high level of commerce among themselves.

    A peaceful world can be built with the already large number of countries with no wars between them. These countries do not even have a threat of war between them. Where they share a common border, the borders are unarmed and they share in a well-established common defense system.

    Examples of how to increase the growth of equitable commerce:

    • Most wars since World War II have occurred in developing countries where the people have few of the necessities to sustain life and are desperately poor. Some modern large-scale farming uses vast land-holdings to operate. To meet this need, giant corporations have acquired many small farms leaving local people with little. For example, in Honduras 67 percent of the population are limited to only 12 percent of the arable land. Nearly 61 percent of the population is malnourished.13 In such situations, if large corporations fail to understand and meet local needs, the danger of civil unrest and war is increased.
    • Economic depressions can drive desperate people in severely depressed countries to support leaders who promise extreme measures, e.g. Hitler. Current efforts to help the Soviet Union economically reflect this concern.
    • International trade agreements can help build friendly relations between countries if they are fair. Hostility is generated if the agreements are not fair, like allowing com panies in some countries to sell for less by ignoring uncon trolled pollution of the environment, paying starvation wages, maintaining unhealthy and unsafe plants. 14
    • Howard Brembeck in his book, The Civilized Defense Plan, tells how nations can collectively use international trade sanctions and/or incentives to cooperatively build security systems against threatening nations. 15

    Peace Force No. 3 WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATION

    A shrinking world allows the public to better observe, un der stand, and respond to global dangers. Today, what seems commonplace, such as daily watching and par tic i pat ing in world events, would not have been possible a few decades ago. Due to rapid growth in the number of television sets, communication satellites, computers, fax machines and tele phones, significant events around the world can be seen, heard, or read about daily by hundreds of millions of people. Jet airplanes allow travel to most places in the world within hours, making it easier to talk directly to others.

    Turner Cable News Network (CNN), with its reporters throughout the world, provides TV news to millions of people around the globe, around the clock. It gives everyone the same basis for discussion by providing the same information at the same moment. CNN has compelled rivals to increase live coverage of international news. This situation allows viewers greater opportunity to form their own opinions of world events.16 World news, however, can still be misleading at times, such as during the Gulf War when large-scale slaughter was shown mostly as a video game.

    The worldwide communication growth pace is in creasing. For example, starting November 1991 World Ser vice Tele vi sion (sponsored by BBC) began beaming news daily into 38 Asian countries with a combined population of 2.7 billion. 17 In India people bought six million TV sets in 1988, up from only 150,000 a decade before. 18

    Examples of how global communication can be a force for peace:

    • The world can see and act against common security threats. Acts of aggression, such as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, can be seen by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. This allows nations to respond to aggressive acts early. For example, more than 100 nations quickly joined in supporting political and economic sanctions, through the United Na tions, against Iraq. This was the largest number of nations in history to support economic sanctions at one time. 19
    • The world is an open stage. It is increasingly difficult for autocratic leaders to keep their people isolated from world events. For instance, the efforts of the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup to control information failed. The Soviet people kept informed of events through cellular phones, fax machines, satellite television, international broadcasts and pocket radios, as well as computers reproducing messages for the public.
    • Worldwide communication can help the growth of democracy. An understanding of freedom is being spread to people who are not now free because TV allows them to see people in other countries experiencing freedom. As businessmen, government leaders, students and tourists travel between countries, they can observe various types of freedom and techniques of self-government.
    • The global public can respond together to worldwide dangers, e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, radiation fall out, etc.

    Peace Force No. 4 REDUCING MILITARISM

    Militaristic nations, those with an excessive arms build-up, are far more likely to go to war. Newcombe and Klaassen found, from 1950 to 1978, that nations with the greatest military expenditures as a percentage of per capita income were 30 times more likely to be involved in an international war than other countries. 20

    Iraq illustrates how a nation’s excessive arms build-up can be a warning signal. In 1984, long before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Iraq was spending a far larger part of its national income for the military (42 percent) than any other country in the world. 21 “Between 1981 and 1988, Iraq purchased an estimated $46.7 billion worth of arms and military equip ment from foreign suppliers, the largest accumulation ever of mod ern weapons by a Third World country.” 22

    Military forces have established an influential political base throughout the developing world. They represent the largest single element in most government bureaucracies and the largest financial resource. They provide the visible trappings of prestige for political leaders, civilian or military: the req ui site honor guards, jet aircraft, helicopters, etc. They have a direct line to the world of wealth and business, the arms-producing corporations that are both beneficiaries of government lar gesse and contributors to political power. And they deal in matters of national security which can be made secret and inaccesible both to the public and to any of the usual checks and balances within the government. Countries under military control have suffered three times as many wars and 19 times as many deaths as in the rest of the Third World countries. 23

    Examples of how reducing militarism can help the growth of peace:

    • The less money developing countries spend on weapons the more chance they have to improve their standard of living, education, and health as well as to become a democracy. In a detailed comparison of 142 countries, it was found that when military spending is high, socio-economic well-being lags.24 In much of the developing world, military expenditures are almost four times the investment for health care and twice that for education.25
    • Among 142 countries in 1987, the United States was number one in military expenditures, military technology, military bases, military training of foreign forces, military aid to foreign countries, naval fleet, combat aircraft, nuclear reactors, nuclear warheads and bombs and nuclear tests, while at the same time, the U.S. ranked 18th in infant mortality rate, 13th in maternal mortality rate, and 18th in population per physician.26
    • While democracies do not fight one another, some de moc ra cies have strong militaristic tendencies. In the last decade, seven of the world’s ten top merchants of offensive weapons, mass destruction weapons parts and weapons fa cil i ties were Western democracies. In 1990, the U.S. was the world’s top weapons supplier. Since World War II there have been over 170 wars and conflicts, mostly involving countries which rely on foreign suppliers for their military needs. 27 De moc ra cies can do much for peace by reducing their sale of arms.

    Peace Force No. 5 COOPERATIVE SECURITY

    Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968, said “[W]e should strive to move toward a world in which relations among nations would be based on the rule of law, a world in which national security would be supported by a system of co op er a tive security, with conflict resolution and peace-keeping functions performed by mul ti lat er al in sti tu tions – a reorganized and strengthened United Nations and new and expanded re gion al organizations, in clud ing an Asian counterpart.” 28

    The role of the U.N. is being forced to change from keeping peace to making peace, as more conflicts continue to erupt, more aid is delivered and more elections are monitored. With 13 current U.N. peacekeeping operations and over 52,000 U.N. troops and police officers on site, the added costs are threatening the U.N.’s continued scope of operations, unless delinquet members pay back dues immediately and make provisions to adequately fund the expanding needs. Also since in the past many worthy peacekeeping resolutions were vetoed by the major powers, the limination of this provision should be seriously coonsidered in the light of present day conditions.

    Randall Forsberg writes, “The end of the Cold War represents a turning point for the role of military force in international affairs. At this unique juncture in history, the world’s main military spenders and arms producers have an unprecedented opportunity to move from confrontation to cooperation. The United States, the European nations, Japan, and the republics of the former USSR can now replace their traditional security policies, based on detterence, nonoffensive defense, nonproliferation, and multilateral peacekeeping. In fact, they have already taken early steps in this direction.”

    Since the end of the Cold War, coun tries are be gin ning to put more em pha sis on work ing through the United Na tions. It is encouraging that the percentage of Americans who think the U.N. is doing a good job has risen from 28% in 1985 to 78% in December 1991.31

    Examples of how to increase cooperative security:

    A great stride forward in civility, human rights and co op er a tive security will occur as nations together create an In ter na tion al Criminal Court addressing these concerns. The atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and those in the former Yugoslavia have rekindled interest in such a court. A working group of the U.N. International Law Commission has recently released a report in which it rec om mends that an International Çriminal Court ‘be es tab lished by a Statute in the form of a treaty.’ 32 The value of an International Criminal Court would be its clear message that the in ter na tion al community is committed to enforcing in ter na tion al law, and that all individuals, no matter how high their position, will be held accountable for crimes under in ter na tion al law.

    Continued emphasis should be given to the U.N. resolution declaring the l990s the Decade of In ter na tion al Law. This resolution embraces four main purposes: (a) to promote acceptance and respect for principles of in ter na tion al law; (b) to pro mote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, in clud ing resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice; (c) to en cour age the progressive development of in ter na tion al law and cod i fi ca tion; and (d) to encourage the teaching, study, dissemination and wider ap pre ci a tion of international law. 33

    The increased use of cooperative security will be assisted by the further growth of the other peace forces described in this paper. The more nations work together in cooperative security, the less will be the burden for all countries involved and the more secure will be each cooperating country.

    Ultimate Goal

    In order to build a sustained peaceful world, we need to consider the basic requirements of humanity. Dr. Hanna Newcombe, in a comprehensive paper, describes the fol low ing basic needs of humanity.

    • The world’s population has to be balanced with a sustainable healthy global environment.
    • All people need democractic governments with basic freedoms assured. If all countries in the world were freely elected democracies, a world without war is possible.
    • A decent standard of living and quality of life is needed for all people, including those in the poorest countries. It is difficult to build a prosperous and peaceful world if there are gross inequalities between people.

    Dr. Newcombe points out that there are upper limits to the world’s physical resources and some sharing will be required. She says, however, there are no limits in the mental realm, and scientific advances can help us meet our long-term basic needs. 34

    Conclusion

    It is sometimes said that due to hate, fear, greed and corruption there will always be war. The fact that the North American continent, with nearly 300 million people living together from all parts of the world, has had no wars between any of its people for more than 100 years demonstrates that war is not inevitable. Up until the end of World War II there was never a year free of war in Europe 35 and since then there has not been a war in Western Europe. Yugoslavia is in Eastern Europe.

    This paper discusses five major forces that make for peace and the ways we can improve them so that we can better build a peaceful world. Much more research needs to be done. The amount of money spent on peace-fostering research by the U.S. government has been less than one percent of what has been spent on research to make weapons more deadly.36 The amount spent in the world for peace research is similarly small compared with the amount spent upon weapons de vel op ment.

    There remains a serious need for more research in the area of building a peaceful world. The more rigorously it can be demonstrated through research how peace-fostering activities and institutions add to our security, the more likely there will be more funds to support these activities and institutions.
    *Dean Babst is a retired government scientist and Coordinator of the Accidental Nuclear War Prevention Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; David Krieger, an attorney and political scientist, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Bud Deraps is a member of the Board of Directors of the Lentz Peace Research Laboratory, St. Louis, Missouri.

    Acknowledgments

    For valuable suggestions to earlier drafts of this paper, we wish to thank: Dr. William Eckhardt, Lentz Peace Research Laboratory, Dunedin, Florida;. Jennifer Glick, Fourth Freedom Forum, Goshen, Indiana; Charles W. Jamison, Esq., Santa Barbara, California; Dr. Hanna Newcombe, Director, Peace Research Institute, Dundas, Canada; Dr. R. J. Rummel, Professor of Political Science, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu; Dr. Leonard Starobin, Editor, World Peace Report, Elkins Park, Penn ylvania; Dudley Thompson, Grass Valley, California.

    References

    1.Babst, Dean V. “A Force for Peace,” Industrial Research, April 1972.

    2. Babst, Dean V. and Eckhardt, William. ‘How Peaceful Are Democracies Compared With Other Countries?,” Peace Re search, Aug. 1992.

    3. Rummel, R. J. “The Politics of Cold Blood,” Society, Nov./Dec. 1989, p. 40.

    4. Mathews, Tom, et. al. “Decade of Democracy,” Newsweek, 30 Dec. 1991.

    5. Babst, Dean V. “Building A World Without War Is Possible,” Global Security Study No. 10, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif. June 1991.

    6. “Commonwealth Pledges to Promote Democracy,” Sacramento Bee, 21 Oct. 1991.

    7. Bigham, Joe. “Help for New Democratic Nations,” Sacramento Bee, 20 Sept. 1991.

    8. Ignatius, David. “The Good Guys Won Without CIA Secrecy,” Sacramento Bee, 6 Oct. 1991.

    9. Holsti, K. J. International Politics – A Framework For Analysis, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1977, p. 242.

    10. “U.S. is still largest debtor,” Sacramento Bee, 3 July 1991.

    11. Babst, Dean V. “Commerce: A Powerful Growing Force For Peace,” Global Security Study No. 9, Nuclear Age Peace Foun da tion, Santa Barbara, Calif., Sept. 1990.

    12. Nulty, Peter. “How the World Will Change,” Fortune, 15 Jan. 1990.

    13. Mead, Walter R. “Bushism Found,” Harper’s Magazine, Sept. 1992.

    14. Feldman, Jonathan. Universities in the Business of Repression, South End Press, 1989, p. 77.

    15. Brembeck, Howard S. The Civilized Defense Plan, Hero Books, Fairfax, Virgina, 1989.

    16. “Man of the Year,” Time, 6 January 1992.

    17. Privat, Pascal, et. al. “The BBC’s New Baby,” Newsweek, 28 Oct. 1991.

    18. Stewart, Thomas A. “How To Manage In The New Era,” Fortune, 15 Jan. 1991.

    19. Webster, William. “Sanctions in the Persian Gulf – Iraq: The Domestic Impact of Sanctions,” Congressional Record, S102, 10 Jan. 1991.

    20. Newcombe, Alan G. and Klaassen, Ruth. “The Pre dic tion of War Using the Tensionmeter,” Peace Research In sti tute, Dundas, Canada, 1983.

    21. Babst, Dean V. and Hardy, Marc. “Positive Power Of Trade,” Background Paper No. 1, Fourth Freedom Forum, July 1991.

    22. “Why can’t Arabs rescue Kuwait?” Sacramento Bee, 25 January 1991 (Quote from Michael Klare’s book, American Arms Supermarket, University of Texas Press)

    23. Sivard, Ruth L. World Military And Social Ex pen di tures, 14th Edition, World Priorities, Washington, D.C., 1991, p. 19.

    24. Ibid, p. 27.

    25. “We Arm the World: U.S. is Number One Weapons Dealer,” The Defense Monitor, Center for Defense In for ma tion, Wash. D.C.Vol. XX, No.4, 1991, p. 3.

    26. Sivard, op. cit. p 46.

    27. The Defense Monitor, Vol. XX, No.4, op. cit, pp. 2 & 3.

    28. McNamara, Robert S. “The Changing Nature of Global Security And Its Impact On South Asia,” Address to the Indian Defense Policy Forum, New Delhi, India on Nov. 20, 1992 published by Washington Council on Non-Pro lif er a tion, Washington D.C., Dec. 1992.

    29. Lewis, Paul. “Peacekeeper Is Now Peacemaker,” New York Times, 25 Jan. 1993.

    30. Forsberg, Randall. “Defense Cuts and Cooperative Se cu ri ty in the Post-Cold War World,” Boston Review, May-July 1992.

    31. Kay, Alan F., et. al. Perception of Globalization, World Structures and Security, Survey #17, Americans Talk Se cu ri ty, Washington, D.C. 25 Nov. – 2 Dec. 1991.

    32. “Report of the Working Group on the Question of In ter na tion al Criminal Jurisdiction,” Report of the In ter na tion al Law Commission, U.N. General Assembly Sup ple ment No. 10 (A/47/10), p. 144.

    33. U.N. General Assembly resolution 44/23, 17 November 1989.

    34. Newcombe, Hanna. “Pax Democratia: Reaching the High Plateau,” paper presented at International Peace Re search Association, Kyoto, Japan, 26-31 July 1992.

    35. Sorokin, Pitrim A. Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol.III, American Book Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1957.

    36. Babst, Global Security Study No. 10, op. cit.

  • Fifth Step: Make the U.N. Effective for the 21st Century

    planethood

     

     

     

     

    The following is an excerpt from Planethood, by Benjamin B. Ferencz and Ken Keyes, Jr.

    Since the end of World War II, our failure to create an effective world system to govern the planet has resulted in millions killed, many more injured, businesses disrupted, lives twisted through fear and hatred, property destroyed, environmental pollution and degeneration accelerated, and money wasted on killing machines (this term includes both people and guns). The insanity of nuclear killing machines is making us realize that World War III (with possibly 5 million fatalities) may bring about the end of all people on this planet. It is the plea of PlanetHood that we end the arms race—not the human race.

    The First Four Steps

    Let’s briefly review the steps we’ve covered so far. Step One requires us to assert our ultimate human right to live with dignity in a healthy environment free from the threat of war. Step Two asks us to understand the new top layer of government we need in order to nail down this ultimate human right for you and your family for all time – no more international anarchy. We need to complete the governmental structure of the world with a limiting constitution setting up a lawmaking body (representing the people of the world), a world court (staffed with the wisest judges chosen from among the nations of the world), and an effective system of sanctions and peacekeeping forces to enforce the agreed standards of national behavior. This final layer of government would globally ensure our basic human rights, protect the sovereignty of nations, settle disputes legally, and protect the environment.

    By taking Step Three we realize what it means to become a Planethood Patriot. We are urged to step into George Washington’s footsteps in creating and supporting a new constitution to govern the nations of the world. The Federal Republic of the World must be strong enough to avoid ineffectiveness, and have checks and balances to limit power and avoid tyranny. This is secured by a wise balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

    In Step Four we acknowledge our enormous progress over the past century in creating international law. We have been gradually globalizing. We note how the nations of the world have been getting accustomed to working with each other – gradually and safely yielding small portions of their sovereignty in order to benefit from binding international agreements for the common good. We see that nation-states are already merging into larger economic and political entities to meet their common needs – such as the European Union. There is a growing awareness that the world system must change to meet the challenge of the 21st Century.

    In Step Five we will discuss updating our vehicle for survival – the U.N. – as we move toward an effective world system with checks and balances to protect our rights and freedoms. This step is primarily concerned with spelling out how we need to reform the U.N. to ensure world peace.

    After the carnage of World War II with 35 million dead, many nations were determined not to go through that again. Toward the end of the war we began to plan the United Nations Organization. In October 1945 the Charter was ratified by 50 nations at San Francisco. Enthusiasm ran high. “The U.N. Charter can be a greater Magna Carta,” said John Foster Dulles, our Secretary of State, who was a delegate to the San Francisco conference.

    It’s interesting to note that the U.N. Charter was completed on June 26, 1945 – six weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This may help explain its weakness. The delegates were unaware of the devastation we would face in the nuclear era. They did not know that humanity’s survival would be at stake. They failed to understand that we could no longer drag our feet in replacing international anarchy with enforced international law.

    The Security Council

    The Charter provides for a Security Council and a General Assembly. The Security Council was supposed to be the enforcement arm. Its five permanent members were victorious in World War II: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China (in 1971 the People’s Republic of China replaced Nationalist China on the Security Council, in 19__, the Soviet Union was replaced by Russia). In addition, there are now ten rotating members – originally there were six.

    It was deliberately set up so that the big powers could ignore any vote they didn’t like. Any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto any enforcement action—even If the rest of the world is for it! Since the Big Five have been behind most of the trouble in the world, it’s like setting up the foxes to guard the chicken coop.

    Because of the distrust and conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (and because we usually vote to support our friends and they usually support their friends), deadlocks on all important issues involving war and peace have usually blocked effective action by the U.N. For example, the U.S. in 1990 vetoed a resolution for the U.N. to send a fact- finding mission to get information on the Jewish-Arab conflict in the occupied territories. An impartial understanding of what’s happening is a needed first step in the peace process. This lack of respect for legal, peaceful conflict resolution has set a poor example for the other nations of the world.

    Brian Urquhart, U.N. under secretary-general for special political affairs, lamented, “There are moments when I feel that only an invasion from outer space will reintroduce into the Security Council that unanimity and spirit which the founders of the Charter were talking about.” Let us hope that the shock of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the threat to Saudi Arabia will begin to do it for us!

    Thus we have a toddling Security Council that under the Charter is empowered to send armed forces anywhere on earth to stop war. And it is usually rendered impotent because of the Charter requirement for the unanimous vote of the permanent members of the Security Council to act in preserving peace. In 1945 we weren’t quite ready yet to take the final step. Perhaps we’re now waking up to the idiocy of living in an ungoverned world!

    The General Assembly

    In addition to the Security Council, the Charter of the United Nations set up the General Assembly. It has been called a “town meeting of the world” by former Secretary-General Trygve Lie. Each nation has one vote in the General Assembly, which has grown from the original 50 nations to 160 today. Thus small nations, regardless of size, have the same vote as large nations, regardless of population. For example, Grenada with about 90,000 people has an equal vote with the United States, which has 1/4 billion people.

    Since the Security Council has all the power to act, the big powers gave the other nations of the world the power to talk! It’s interesting to note that when a resolution passes the General Assembly, it goes to the Security Council as a recommendation only. The General Assembly has no Charter power to require any action to keep the peace – or to do anything but suggest!

    Thus we are heading for the 21st Century with 160 “But the hard fact remains,” comments Richard Hudson in his newsletter Global Report, “that the decision-making system in the world body is too flawed to deal with the awesome gamut of our planet’s problems in the coming decades. It is neither morally right nor politically sensible to leave veto power in the Security Council in the hands of the five nuclear powers. It is plainly absurd to have decisions made on the basis of one nation, one vote in the General Assembly, thus giving countries with minute populations and minuscule contributions to the U.N. budget the same influence in decision- making as the bigger countries that have to pay the bills. Moreover, a central global decision-making body that can pass only non-binding recommendations is not what the world needs for the 21st century.”

    The Need for Reform

    Patricia Mische, co-founder of Global Education Associates, tells a story that compares the United Nations to a dog that is expected to give protection from thieves and murderers. The dog is a good dog, but it has three problems. First, the masters muzzle the dog so the dog can bark but not bite, and thieves and murderers know this. Second, the masters don’t feed the dog very well, so the dog is always hungry and anxious for itself, and lacks energy to do its job well. Third, the dog has 160 masters, and they often give conflicting directions and confuse the dog.

    Here is the prescription for rebuilding the UN: Remove the muzzle, feed the dog, and reform the masters, so they will not be confusing the dog.

    Vernon Nash wrote in The World Must Be Governed, “. . . if Hamilton or any other founding father returned to the United States today and read a. current article about the performance and prospects of the United Nations, he certainly would say to himself, ‘This is where I came in.’. . . Then, as now, men kept trying to get order without law, to establish peace while retaining the right and power to go on doing as they pleased.”

    The United States, which was the principal mover in creating the World Court, gave the appearance of accepting compulsory jurisdiction over “any question of international law.” But that was quite deceptive. By special reservations, the U.S. excluded certain types of disputes, which the U.S. could by itself decide it wanted solely within its own domestic jurisdiction.

    A nation undermines the Court when it gives the appearance of accepting the Court and, at the same time, denies to the tribunal the normal powers of every judicial agency. A nation that defies the Jurisdiction of the Court when it becomes a defendant shows contempt for the Court. A nation that ignores the Court when it doesn’t like a judgment against it undercuts the process of law. When these things are done by – the U.S., which helped establish the World Court, it diminishes respect for itself.

    Despite technical legal arguments that were raised to justify the U.S. position when Nicaragua in 1984 complained that we were mining its harbors and seeking to overthrow its government, the fact is that the U.S. refused to honor the Court or its judgments. This was seen throughout the world as a hypocritical manifestation of scorn for the tribunal – which the United States praised when decisions went in its favor. Defiance of law is an invitation to disaster. What may have been tolerable in the pre-nuclear age is intolerable now.

    In a world of law and order, aggressor nations should clearly be identified as outlaws for rejecting the rule of law. This is not to suggest that justified grievances should be ignored; sincere efforts must be made to find just solutions. But a handful of states, or a small group of fanatics, should not be permitted to thwart humankind’s progress toward a more lawful and peaceful world.

    Supporting the U.N.

    In 1986 the U.S. Congress reduced its financial support of the United Nations by over half, largely because it did not like certain expenditures. Since the total U.N. budget is less than New York City’s, any reduction of its annual $800 million income is crippling. In the past the Soviet Union has also failed to pay its U.N. dues for the same reason. In October 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev talked of invigorating the Security Council. To back up his words, the Soviet Union announced that it would pay all its overdue U.N. bills, which came to $197 million. And they’ve followed through on this promise.

    That left the United States in October 1987 the outstanding delinquent, who still owed over $414 million, including $61 million for peacekeeping forces that the U.S. opposed! As of December 1989, the U.S. was behind $518 million – in violation of its treaty obligations. In his last budget request, President Reagan asked for full U.N. current funding and about a 10% payment on our past dues. Bush in his first budget made the same request. Our Congress was still unwilling to honor our obligations. The cost of only one Stealth bomber would cover our disgracefully broken contractual agreements with the U.N. – and with humanity’s future.

    The world spends only $800 MILLION a year on peace through the U.N., and about $1 TRILLION on national military budgets – over a thousand times more!!! Does it come as a surprise that we are today 1,000 times more effective at waging war than at waging peace?

    There are amazing parallels between our situation with the United Nations today and the dangerous situation in the United States two centuries ago. Tom Hudgens in his book Let’s Abolish War points out that the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation:

    1. Had no independent taxing powers.
    2. Could not regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
    3. Had no powers of direct enforcement of its laws.
    4. Was ineffective in foreign affairs.
    5. Had no chief executive.
    6. Had no binding court of justice…

    “Do you realize,” Hudgens asks, “that every one of these charges can be leveled at the United Nations today? We are living today under the Articles of Confederation except we call it the United Nations.”

    Instead of starting all over again, the U.N. may be our best bet to rapidly ensure our ultimate human right. A redrafting of the Charter and its ratification by the nations of the world is needed. It won’t be easy to persuade nations to mend their ways, but it can be done.

    For years, the officials of the U.N. have known what needs to be done. They’re powerless unless authorized by the nations of the world. They’ve been waiting for you to take the needed steps to alter the views of the entrenched diplomats, which would permit them to respond effectively to international lawlessness – and thus set the stage for a new era of prosperity and peace on earth.

    Confederation vs. Federation

    In order to take Step Five by working to make the U.N. more effective in the nuclear age, you must clearly understand the key differences between the U.N. today and the world federation we need for tomorrow. Just as the terms “Confederation” and “Federation” were confusing to the 1787 delegates at Philadelphia, people usually don’t understand their significance today. The World Federalist Association in its pamphlet We the People helps us clarify the crucial differences between a league or confederation, and a federation or union:

    • In a league or confederation (like the U.N.), each state does as it pleases regardless of the consequences to the whole; in a federation or union (like the U.S.), each state accepts some restrictions for the security and wellbeing of the whole.
    • In a league, the central body is merely a debating society without authority to control the harmful behavior of individuals; in a federation, the central body makes laws for the protection of the whole and prosecutes individuals who break them.
    • In a league, any enforcement is attempted only against member states; in a federation, enforcement of laws is directed against individual lawbreakers.
    • In a league, conflicts among members continue unabated, resulting in costly arms races and wars; in a federation, conflicts among states are worked out in a federal parliament and in federal courts.
    • A league has no independent sources of revenue; a federation has its own supplemental sources of revenue.
    • In a league, state loyalty overrides loyalty to the wider community; in a federation, loyalty to each state is balanced by loyalty to the wider community.

    Finding the Best Way

    Could you feel secure if a congress made up of people from all over the world enacted binding international laws? Would you be taken advantage of? Too heavily taxed? Your rights ignored? Could a dictator grab power? Can we set up a world legislature, court, and executive branch that will be more protective of the U.S. than the Pentagon? How can we actually increase our “defense” through a reformed U.N.? How do we reform the U.N. to avoid ecocide?[1]

    As George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would testify, there is no one simple way to hammer out a new constitution. It takes an open-minded willingness to consider all points of view, to lay aside one’s prejudices and psychological certainties, and to be patient enough to listen and search until effective answers are found and agreed upon. Just as success in 1787 required that various states be satisfied, in like manner we must create a reformed U.N. that meets today’s needs and interests of the nations of the world.

    There have been many proposals to improve the United Nations and make it more effective as the keeper of the peace. One suggestion, known as the “Binding Triad,” comes from Richard Hudson, founder of the Center for War/Peace Studies. It requires two basic modifications of the U.N. Charter:

    The voting system in the General Assembly would be changed. Important decisions would still be adopted with a single vote, but with three simultaneous majorities within that vote. Approval of a resolution would require that the majority vote include two-thirds of the members present and voting (as at present), nations representing two-thirds of the population of those present and voting, and nations representing two-thirds of the contributions to the regular U.N. budget of those present and voting. Thus, in order for a resolution to pass, it would have to be supported strongly by most of the countries of the world, most of the population of the world, and most of the political/economic/military strength of the world.

    The powers of the General Assembly would be increased under the Binding Triad so that in most cases its resolutions would be binding, not recommendations as at present. The new General Assembly, now a global legislature, will be able to use peacekeeping forces and/or economic sanctions to carry out its decisions. However, the Assembly would not be permitted “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state.” If the jurisdiction were in doubt, the issue would be referred to the World Court, and if the court ruled that the question was essentially domestic, the Assembly could not act.”[2]

    This is only one possibility for giving the General Assembly limited legislative powers. A World Constitution for the Federation of Earth has been drafted by the World Constitution and Parliament Association headed by Philip Isely of Lakewood, Colorado. There are many ways to reform the U.N. to give the world binding international laws, a binding court of international justice, and an executive branch to enforce the law with effective economic sanctions and an international military force that replaces national armies, navies, and air forces.

    A 14-point program is shown on the next page. Models of new international systems to create world order have been prepared by many scholars, among who are Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University, Professor Saul Mendlovitz of Rutgers, and Professor Louis Sohn of Harvard University. With wise checks and balances, we can set up an overall system that will enable the world to work! Political leaders lack the political will to make the required changes in the U.N. It’s time for the public to speak out.

    Once the world union is formed, do we want to permit an easy divorce if a nation wants to get out when it disagrees about something? The American Civil War in 1861-1865 settled whether states could leave the federal union if they disagreed with its policies. The victory by the Union dearly established that no state could secede from the federal government once it agreed to be a member.

    If politicians in a nation become angry and could whip up the people to get out, it would signal the end of the world system. Once a nation agrees to the reformed U.N., it must be permanent. By resigning from the organization,” Cord Meyer warns, “a nation could free itself from international supervision, forcing a renewal of the armament race and certain war. In view of the nature of the new weapons, secession would be synonymous with aggression.[3]

    As we’ve pointed out, there is no one way to transform the United Nations into an effective world government. It is important that you give thought to this vital matter and arrive at your own conclusions on how to do it. Then discuss them with your friends and neighbors, who will no doubt develop their own ideas. It is only from the clash of opinions that a living truth will emerge that will point to an effective way to complete the governmental structure of the world.

    The Challenge of Our Age

    We are at a crucial point in history. We are on the threshold of great progress. We have reached the stage where large-scale wars are no longer compatible with the future of the human race. We have gone beyond the point where such military power is protective. Instead it threatens to kill us all. We are gradually fouling our environment so that it cannot support human life. And we now know that we must have global institutions to solve our global problems.[4]

    “Environmental knowledge and concerns,” according to Pamela Leonard, “have risen at an increasingly rapid rate in recent years, and many nations have enacted laws and set up agencies to deal with them. Yet little has been done to create laws or institutions on an international scale, despite the fact that the impacts of air and water pollutants travel as easily across national boundaries as across municipal boundaries.”[5]

    Increasing Abundance

    Even if we were not threatened by nuclear war or environmental ruin, we would benefit enormously by a reformed U.N. Through a world republic, our children will have greater prosperity, more personal opportunities for a good life, better maintenance of our precious planet, and better protection of their human rights and freedoms.

    Imagine what a difference this would make in your life and that of your loved ones. The heavy taxes that spill your “economic blood” year by year would no longer be used to feed a greedy war machine. Your children could then feel confident that they would have a future. Business could be liberated from the import and export fences that limit opportunities. We could effectively begin to improve the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Education, medical care, and quality of life would vastly improve when the world no longer spent $1.5 million each minute on increasing its killing capacity. A small international peacekeeping force of several hundred thousand well-trained and equipped people could replace the millions of soldiers now under arms who constantly disrupt the peace of the planet.

    Over the past several centuries there has been a gradual awakening to the importance of international law that can override the military passions of the 160 separate nations around the globe. We have tried world courts and have found that they work if we want them to. We have set up international organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Each has been a step forward. All this experimenting, testing, trying, and hoping have been important steps up the ladder of international growth toward the completion of the governance of our world. We now have the glorious challenge of creating lasting peace and prosperity by reforming the United Nations into a world republic.

    Approaching Planethood

    Many nations today, and eventually all nations, will be willing to cooperate in a reformed United Nations. They will respond to the insistence of their people that we do not let our planet be ruined or blown apart through war. These nations will want to benefit from the much safer and far less costly protection of their national rights and freedoms that only a world government can offer them.

    At long last, the people of this world can get out of the arms race and enjoy a much higher standard of living, environmental protection, education, culture, medical care, etc. We need a world governance that, unlike the present Security Council, cannot be vetoed by one of the five victorious nations of World War II. It will be able to effectively respond to environmental problems that threaten the security of everyone everywhere.

    It is now time for the people to insist on reforming the U.N. Charter. They will become a powerful force when they unite and act together. Sooner or later, those who resist at first will join in – just as holdout states discovered they could not afford to pass up the many benefits of becoming a part of the United States two centuries ago.

    The draft of the U.N. Charter was discussed at Dumbarton Oaks, a private estate in Washington, DC. On a tablet in the garden was inscribed a prophetic motto: “As ye sow, so shall

    ye reap.” When the final instrument was accepted by 50 nations on June 26, 1945, everyone knew that it was less than perfect. The Secretary of State reported to President Truman: “What has resulted is a human document with human imperfections but with human hopes and human victory as well.”

    We need a new “Dumbarton Oaks” to the 21st Century. On December 23, 1987, our Congress passed a law calling for the appointment by our President of a bipartisan U.S. Commission to Improve the Effectiveness of the United Nations. Commissioners should have been appointed by June 1, 1989. By August 1990 there was still no indication that our President would comply with this law of Congress. Let the voice of the people be heard!

    Send a copy of PlanetHood to the President and to your congressional leaders. Tell them you’re tired of delay and indecision. If they get flooded with reminders from the voters, they’ll soon take notice. It is time to act NOW so that the dreams of the U.N. founders may finally become a reality.

    We can no longer pretend that we don’t know what needs to be done. How long will It be until a president, prime minister, or general secretary calls for a Conference to Reform the United Nations or an International Constitutional Convention—and invites all nations to send delegates? Here is an opportunity for statesmanship and fame of the highest order. Let us seize this history- making opportunity and accept the challenge to create a more peaceful world.

    Like Paul Revere, let’s awaken our neighbors. Let’s give ourselves effective international law, world courts, and enforcement in a safe system of checks and balances. Let’s work continuously to bring about the day when our front lines of defense consist of brigades of international attorneys practicing before a binding world court. Then we’ll have finally secured our ultimate human right to live in dignity in a healthy environment free from the threat of war.

    We need a reliable cop on the international corner. Will you help our ungoverned world to create a world system that can work?

    You’ll be taking the Fifth Step toward planethood when you play your part in making the U.N. effective for the 21st Century. As a Planet- hood Patriot, you’ll know that you are doing what you can to make your life count. You will have saved yourself, your family, and all of the men, women, and children throughout our beautiful planet – now and for generations to come.

    IT DEPENDS ON YOU!

    Pull Quotes

    If we want peace, we must reform, restructure and strengthen the United Nations.
    – Dr. John Logue, Director Common Heritage Institute, 1985

    When we get to the point, as one day we will, that both sides know that in any outbreak of general hostilities, regardless of the element of surprise, destruction will be both reciprocal and complete, possibly we will have sense enough to meet at the conference table with the understanding that the area of armaments has ended and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die.
    – Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. President, April 4, 1965

    When there is a problem between two small nations, the problem disappears. When there is a problem between a big country and a small country, the little country disappears. When there is a problem between two big countries, the United Nations disappears.
    – Victor Belaunde, Peruvian U.N. Ambassador

    A Security Council that can be rendered impotent by the vote of one nation obviously cannot begin to guarantee security. A General Assembly that can pass resolutions with the votes of nations representing less than 10 percent of the world’s population, and some 3 percent of the gross world product, will not have, and cannot get, the respect it must have if its decisions are to be taken seriously.
    – Dr. John Logue, Director Common Heritage Institute
    ”A More Effective United Nations” New Jersey Law Journal December 26, 1985

    As Secretary General of this organization, with no allegiance except to the common interest, I feel the question must be justifiably be put to the leading nuclear powers: By what right do they decide the fate of all humanity?…No one can expect to escape from the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war on the fragile structure of our planet. The responsibility assumed by the Great Powers is now no longer to their populations alone; it is to every country and every people, to all of us.
    – Javier Perez de Cuellar, U.N. Secretary General December 1984

    The cause of the United Nations is inseparable from the cause of peace. But we will not have peace by afterthought. If the United Nations is to survive, those who represent it must bolster it, those who advocate it must submit to it, and those who believe in it must fight for it.
    – Norman Cousins, President World Federalist Association
    Author, Anatomy of an Illness

    The United Nations is an extremely important and useful institution provided the people and governments of the world realize that it is merely a transitional system toward the final goal, which is the establishment of a supranational authority vested with sufficient legislative and executive powers to keep the peace.
    – Albert Einstein

    World federalists are working for disarmament by seeking the ways to end all use of force in international relations. The only real alternative to war is an international legal system which provides common security for all states through the peaceful and just resolution of disputes according to law. This is vitally important in a world which has nuclear weapons. World federalists believe the test of sincerity of all who claim to want disarmament is their willingness to create and to be bound by a common world law and by agreed procedures for preventing aggression and solving conflicts peacefully. 
    – World Federalism
    World Association for World Federation

    We seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system… capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can fully be abolished… This will require a new effort to achieve world law.
    – John F. Kennedy, U.S. President

    The proposed system of comprehensive security will become operative to the extent that the United Nations, its security council and other international institutions and mechanisms function effectively. A decisive increase is required in the authority and role of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    – Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet General Secretary, address to U. N., September 1987

    This planet is in bad political shape and is administered appallingly. An outer-space inspection team would undoubtedly give us an F (failure) or a triple D (dumb, deficient, and dangerous) in planetary management. Our world is afflicted by a good dozen conflicts almost permanently. Its skies, lands, and oceans are infested with atomic weapons which cost humanity 850 billion dollars a year, while so many poor people are dying of hunger on this planet. And yet, I have seen the U.N. become universal and prevent many conflicts. I have seen the dangerous decolonization page turned quickly and with infinitely less bloodshed than in Europe and the Americas in preceding centuries. I have seen a flowering expansion of international cooperation in thirty-two U.N. special agencies and world programs.
    – Robert Muller, Former U. N. Assistant Secretary General

    There is enough bad people to make world federal government necessary, and there is enough good people to make it work. 
    – Source Unknown

    Many of these proposals may appear unpatriotic or even treasonous to those who identify being patriotic with the worship of American military power… If patriotism is an active concern for one’s freedom, welfare and survival of one’s people, there is no patriotic duty more immediate than the abolition of war as a national right and institution.
    Cord Meyer
    Peace or Anarchy

    Let us also think about establishing an emergency environmental aid centre within the U.N. Its function would be to promptly dispatch international groups of experts to areas that have experienced a sharp deterioration in the environmental situation.
    Mikhail Gorbachev
    Soviet General Secretary
    Address to the U.N., New York
    December 7, 1988

    It is dangerous in the most literal sense of the word, when streams of poison flow into the rivers, when toxic rains fall on the earth from the sky, when towns and entire regions are suffocating in an atmosphere saturated with the fumes put out by industry and by vehicles, when the development of nuclear power is accompanied by unacceptable risks.
    – Mikhail Gorbachev
    Soviet General Secretary
    Address to U.N., September 1987

    A federation of all humanity, together with a sufficient means of social justice to ensure health, education, and a rough equality of opportunity, would mean such a release and increase of human energy as to open a new phase in human history.
    – H.G. Wells
    Noted Historian

    With all the positive news that’s coming from Eastern Europe and the U. S. government about significant nuclear arsenal reductions (as much as 50%), it’s easy to get lulled into complacency about the nuclear arms race. But consider this: the U.S. is still building and testing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. We are still building the ultimate doomsday device known as star Wars. Even with these reductions in our arsenals, U.S. and Soviets will still have enough fire power to blow the world up 5,000 times, not to mention the French, Israeli, or Chinese stockpiles (as well as the rest of the world). And what about all the toxic wastes? Where will the madness end?
    – Richard Gold
    Eugene Peace Works
    Eugene, Oregon

    The founding of the United Nations embodies our deepest hopes for a peaceful world. And during the past year, we’ve come closer than ever before to realizing those hopes. We’ve seen a century sundered by barbed threats and barbed wire, give way to a new era of peace and competition and freedom. This is a new and different world. Not since 1945 have we seen the real possibility of using the United Nations as it was designed, as a center for international collective security.
    – George Bush
    U.S. President, October 1, 1990
    Address to the United Nations

    Environmentalists and politicians can argue the costs and benefits of international action on global warming from now until doomsday, and they probably will. But nothing will get done without an institutional mechanism to develop, institute, and enforce regulations across national boundaries.
    – Elliot Richardson
    Head of the U. S. Delegation
    Law of the Sea Conference

    A 14-POINT PROGRAM for Reforming the United Nations

    1. Improve the General assembly decision-making process.

    2. Modify the vet in the Security Council.

    3. Create an International Disarmament Organization.

    4. Improve the dispute settlement process.

    5. Improve the U.N.’s peacekeeping capability.

    6. Provide for adequate and stable U.N. revenues.

    7. Create an International Court of Justice.

    8. Create an International Criminal Court to try hijackers and terrorists.

    9. Improve the U.N.’s human rights machinery.

    10. Create a stronger U.N. environmental and conservation programs.

    11. Provide international authorities for areas not under national control.

    12. Provide for more effective world trade and monetary systems.

    13. Establish a U.N. development program.

    14. Achieve administrative reform of the U.N. system.

    For more information, write to Campaign for U.N. Reform, 418 Seventh Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003. Phone: (202) 546-3956

     

    PRESERVING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

    Prepared by the World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and the American Assembly, affiliated with Colombia University, founded by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1950.

    Three indivisibly linked global environmental trends together constitute an increasingly grave challenge to the habitability of the earth. They are human population growth; tropical deforestation and the rapid loss of biological diversity; and global atmospheric change, including stratospheric ozone loss and greenhouse warming. These trends threaten nations’ economic potential security therefore their internal political security, their citizen’s health (because of increased ultraviolet radiation), and, in the case of global warming, possibly their very existence. No more basic threat to national security exists. Thus, together with economic interdependence, global environmental threats are shifting traditional national security concerns to a focus on collective global security.

    The degradation of the global environment is integrally linked to human population growth. More than 90 million people are added each year – more than ever before. On its present trajectory, the world’s population could nearly triple its current size, reaching 14 billion before stabilizing. With a heroic effort, it could level off at around 9 billion. However, today’s unmet need for family planning is huge: only 30 percent of reproductive age people in the developing world outside of China currently have access to contraception. Women’s full and equal participation in society at all levels must be rapidly addressed.

    Tropical deforestation and the loss of a diverse set of species rob the earth of its biological richness, which undermines long-range ecological security and global economic potential. Nearly 20 million hectares of tropical forests are lost every year. Conservative estimates put the extinction rate at one hundred species per day: a rate unmatched since the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Escalating human populations, deforestation, disruptions of watersheds, soil loss, and land degradation ate all linked in a vicious cycle that perpetuates and deepens poverty, and often creates ecological refugees.

    The depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) allows increased ultraviolet B radiation from the sun to enter the earth’s atmosphere, threatening human health and the productivity of the biosphere.

    There is a scientific consensus that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will cause global climactic change. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased 25 percent since the beginning of the industrial era.

    Therefore, the earth is set to experience substantial climate change of unknown scale and rapidity. The consequences are likely to include sea level rise, greater frequency of extreme weather events, disruption of ecosystems, and potentially vast impacts on the global economy. The processes of climate change are irreversible and major additional releases could be triggered from the biosphere by global warming in an uncontrollable self-reinforcing process (example: methane release from unfrozen Arctic tundra).

    We call attention to the immediate need for immediate international action to reverse trends that threaten the integrity of the global environment. These trends endanger all nations in the common interest. Our message is one of urgency. Accountable and courageous leadership in all sectors will be needed to mobilize the necessary effort. If the world community fails to act forcefully in the current decade, the earth’s ability to sustain life is at risk.

    Excert from Preserving the Global Environment: A Challenge of Shared Leadership. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990.

    [1] Ecocide is the deliberate destruction of the natural environment, as by pollutants. 
    [2] For more information and a videotape on the Binding Triad, write the Center for War/Peace Studies, 218 E. 18th Street, New York, NY 10003. Phone: (212) 475-1077.
    [3] After World War II, the Soviet Union took over Lithuania by military conquest – not the free vote of the people. You will recall that the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 clearly specified that the vote of the people – not the politicians – was required to join the United States of America. Lithuania’s desire today for independence is not considered aggression. 
    [4] Pace Law School in White Plains, New York has a Center for Environmental Legal Studies headed by Professor Nicholas A. Robinson. He teaches lawyers about environmental problems now facing our nation and the world.
    [5] From Effective Global Environmental Protection by Pamela Leonard. Published by World Federalist Association, May 1990.

  • The Magna Carta For The Nuclear Age: A Universal Declaration of Individual Accountability Prepared by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Preamble

    Affirming that all people of the World are entitled to life, liberty and other basic human rights;

    Believing that all individuals, states and international organizations share in the responsibility to ensure peace, protect human rights and sustain the common heritage of the planet;

    Acknowledging the significant efforts of the United Nations and other international organizationstoward these ends;

    Committed to the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Nuremberg Principles;

    Convinced that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have no place in a civilized World order;

    Further convinced that survival in the nuclear age requires adherence to principles of justice and the World rule of law;

    Determined to establish a just, peaceful and civilized World order in the twenty-first century,

    We proclaim this Magna Carta for the Nuclear Age.

    Article I

    All individuals, including Heads of State, Ministers of Government, industrial, scientific and military leaders, shall be held personally accountable under international law for planning, preparing, initiating or committing the following acts:

    • Crimes against peace, including waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties.
    • War crimes, including deliberate attacks against civilian populations, the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and other grave breaches of humanitarian law.
    • Crimes against humanity, including genocide, torture, and other serious mass violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
    • Crimes against the environment, including intentional spoliation of living habitats.
    • Economic crimes against a people or nation, including slavery in all forms.
    • Terrorism, piracy, kidnapping, hostage taking, and the training, support or sheltering of persons engaged in such crimes.
    • Illicit trafficking in arms or narcotics, and all acts in furtherance of such crimes.
    • Covert acts to overthrow or destabilize a legitimate foreign government, including assassination.
    • Deliberate persecution or denial of civil rights on grounds of race, color, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

    Article II

    The World Community shall ensure the further codification of these provisions through the continuing activities of the United Nations and other international organizations, and shall ensure compliance with them by establishing and maintaining the following institutions:

    • An International Commission of Inquiry to engage in fact finding and certification of cases for trial;
    • An International Criminal Court, composed of distinguished jurists, to try cases certified by the International Commission of Inquiry;
    • International Police Forces to enforce the orders of the International Criminal Court;
    • An International Criminal Penitentiary for confinement of convicted offenders; and
    • A Center for the Advancement of International Criminal Law and Justice, independent of governments, to assist in codification of international criminal law and monitoring the implementation of this Charter.
    • An International Commission of Inquiry to engage in fact finding and certification of cases for trial;
    • An International Criminal Court, composed of distinguished jurists, to try cases certified by the International Commission of Inquiry;
    • International Police Forces to enforce the orders of the International Criminal Court;
    • An International Criminal Penitentiary for confinement of convicted offenders; and
    • A Center for the Advancement of International Criminal Law and Justice, independent of governments, to assist in codification of international criminal law and monitoring the implementation of this Charter.

    Article III

    These provisions, upon adoption, may be added to, abridged or altered by the common consent of the World Community of nations and peoples, but without amendment they shall be binding in perpetuity.

  • Resolution 715 (1991) on Iraq

    Adopted by the Security Council at its 3012th meeting

    The Security Council,

    Recalling its resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 and 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, and its other resolutions on this matter,

    Recalling in particular that under resolution 687 (1991) the Secretary-General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were requested to develop plans for future ongoing monitoring and verification, and to submit them to the Security Council for approval,

    Taking note of the report and note of the Secretary-General (S/22871/Rev.1 and S/22872/Rev.1), transmitting the plans submitted by the Secretary-General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    1. Approves, in accordance with the provisions of resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991) and the present resolution, the plans submitted by the Secretary-General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (S/22871/Rev.1 and S/22872/Rev.1);

    2. Decides that the Special Commission shall carry out the plan submitted by the Secretary-General (S/22871/Rev.1), as well as continuing to discharge its other responsibilities under resolutions 687 (1991), 699 (1991) and 707 (1991) and performing such other functions as are conferred upon it under the present resolution;

    3. Requests the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission, the plan submitted by him (S/22872/Rev.1) and to continue to discharge his other responsibilities under resolutions 687 (1991), 699 (1991) and 707 (1991);

    4. Decides that the Special Commission, in the exercise of its responsibilities as a subsidiary organ of the Security Council, shall:

    (a) Continue to have the responsibility for designating additional locations for inspection and overflights;

    (b) Continue to render assistance and cooperation to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, by providing him by mutual agreement with the necessary special expertise and logistical, informational and other operational support for the carrying out of the plan submitted by him;

    (c) Perform such other functions, in cooperation in the nuclear field with the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as may be necessary to coordinate activities under the plans approved by the present resolution, including making use of commonly available services and information to the fullest extent possible, in order to achieve maximum efficiency and optimum use of resources;

    5. Demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the plans approved by the present resolution and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the plans;

    6. Decides to encourage the maximum assistance, in cash and in kind, from all Member States to support the Special Commission and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out their activities under the plans approved by the present resolution, without prejudice to Iraq’s liability for the full costs of such activities;

    7. Requests the Committee established under resolution 661 (1990), the Special Commission and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to develop in cooperation a mechanism for monitoring any future sales or supplies by other countries to Iraq of items relevant to the implementation of section C of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, including the present resolution and the plans approved hereunder;

    8. Requests the Secretary-General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to submit to the Security Council reports on the implementation of the plans approved by the present resolution, when requested by the Security Council and in any event at least every six months after the adoption of this resolution;

    9. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

  • Earth Citizenship

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/krieger_earth_citizenship.pdf

  • You and the Atomic Bomb

    Considering how likely we all are to be blown to pieces by it within the next five years, the atomic bomb has not roused so much discussion as might have been expected. The newspapers have published numerous diagrams, not very helpful to the average man, of protons and neutrons doing their stuff, and there has been much reiteration of the useless statement that the bomb “ought to be put under international control.” But curiously little has been said, at any rate in print, about the question that is of most urgent interest to all of us, namely: “How difficult are these things to manufacture?”

    Such information as we–that is, the big public–possess on this subject has come to us in a rather indirect way, apropos of President Truman’s decision not to hand over certain secrets to the USSR. Some months ago, when the bomb was still only a rumour, there was a widespread belief that splitting the atom was merely a problem for the physicists, and that when they had solved it a new and devastating weapon would be within reach of almost everybody. (At any moment, so the rumour went, some lonely lunatic in a laboratory might blow civilisation to smithereens, as easily as touching off a firework.)

    Had that been true, the whole trend of history would have been abruptly altered. The distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the State over the individual would have been greatly weakened. However, it appears from President Truman’s remarks, and various comments that have been made on them, that the bomb is fantastically expensive and that its manufacture demands an enormous industrial effort, such as only three or four countries in the world are capable of making. This point is of cardinal importance, because it may mean that the discovery of the atomic bomb, so far from reversing history, will simply intensify the trends which have been apparent for a dozen years past.

    It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon–so long as there is no answer to it–gives claws to the weak.

    The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans–even Tibetans–could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three–ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon–or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting–not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.

    From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars, and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation. But suppose–and really this the likeliest development–that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.

    When James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution it seemed probable to many Americans that the Germans would win the European end of the war, and it was therefore natural to assume that Germany and not Russia would dominate the Eurasian land mass, while Japan would remain master of East Asia. This was a miscalculation, but it does not affect the main argument. For Burnham’s geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parceled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years, and the third of the three super-states–East Asia, dominated by China–is still potential rather than actual. But the general drift is unmistakable, and every scientific discovery of recent years has accelerated it.

    We were once told that the aeroplane had “abolished frontiers”; actually it is only since the aeroplane became a serious weapon that frontiers have become definitely impassable. The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and co-operation; it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another. The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.

    For forty or fifty years past, Mr. H.G. Wells and others have been warning us that man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants or some other gregarious species to take over. Anyone who has seen the ruined cities of Germany will find this notion at least thinkable. Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham’s theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications–that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of “cold war” with its neighbors.

    Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a “peace that is no peace.”

  • Seize This Moment for a Nuclear-Free World

    The welcome news that US intelligence agencies have disavowed earlier reports that Iran was hell-bent on making nuclear weapons has given the world a breather. Rational people can now fortify the case against the Bush Administration’s plans to unilaterally and pre-emptively attack Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities. It would be sheer folly to start yet another unauthorized war. Nevertheless, technology used to produce “peaceful” nuclear energy, an “inalienable right” guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to its members, also gives countries the technology they need to manufacture nuclear bombs, as we’ve seen with North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, as well as other nations who started down that path but gave it up like South Africa, Argentina, and Libya

    During this blessed respite from war against a potential nuclear state, let’s not squander our opportunity for greater security. All nations should be brought to the table to negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. Let us follow the lead of Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry, former cold warriors, who called this year for such a commitment, understanding that the longer we delay, the more dangerous it will be as other countries emulate our nuclear prowess. The US must honor its own agreement under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), put a halt to the development of new nuclear weapons, and take up Putin’s offer of several years ago to cut our mutual nuclear arsenals of about 10,000 weapons to 1,000. Once the US and Russia get down to reasonable numbers approaching the arsenals of the other nuclear weapons states – China, UK, France and Israel, who have stockpiles in the hundreds, and India, Pakistan, and North Korea who have less than one hundred bombs in their arsenals – then we can take up China’s offer to negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons and call all the nuclear weapons states to the table.
    Civil society has already produced a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention introduced into the UN General Assembly by Costa Rica as a discussion document. It lays out all the steps for dismantlement, verification, guarding, and monitoring the disassembled arsenals to insure that we will all be secure from break-out. We must also take up Russia and China’s proposal, offered every year for the past four years in the UN, to ban all weapons in space. That is a pre-condition for Russia and China’s agreement to abolish nuclear weapons as they do not want to be dominated from space by the US. And we’ll also have to include a Missile Ban Treaty and forego provocative US actions of planting missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, rattling our sabers at Russia, or in the Asian-Pacific region, starting an arms race with China..

    Finally, we must supersede the NPT’s guarantee to so-called “peaceful” nuclear technology, upon which Iran is now lawfully relying, by establishing an International Sustainable Energy Agency as we phase out nuclear power. To think we can control the nuclear fuel cycle, saying Brazil and Japan can enrich nuclear fuel, but not Iran, would create a new system of nuclear apartheid, doomed to fail. Ending the nuclear age would take off the table any plans to go to war against countries with nuclear facilities with which we disagree. It’s totally naive to think that anything less than the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and their evil twins – nuclear reactors – would actually work. Let us not condemn our planet to a state of perpetual war – with unimaginable catastrophes. Giving peace a chance by negotiating an end to the nuclear age is the only practical way out of our terrifying dilemma. Let us seize the opportunity of this brief pause on the path to war and move with hope into a nuclear-free 21st Century.

    Alice Slater is the New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).