Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear weapons

  • Visiting Hiroshima

    David KriegerI recently visited Hiroshima to give a speech. It is a city that I have visited many times in the past, and I am always amazed by its resilience. The city represents for me the human power of recovery and forgiveness.

    The first thing one is likely to notice about Hiroshima is that it is a beautiful city. It has rivers running through it and many trees and areas of green space. Without the reminders that have been left in place, one would not know that it is a city that was completely destroyed and flattened in 1945 by the first atomic bomb used in warfare.

    I was the guest of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku Shimbun, the largest newspaper in the region with a circulation of some 600,000. Walking from my hotel to the newspaper headquarters, I entered the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and passed the famous Atomic Bomb Dome, one of the few buildings that survived the bombing. The Dome was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1996.

    In the Peace Memorial Park there is a Children’s Peace Monument, a statue dedicated to Sadako Sasaki and the thousands of child victims of the bombing. Sadako, who was two years old when the bomb was dropped, lived a normal life until she came down with radiation-induced leukemia at the age of twelve and was hospitalized. Sadako folded paper cranes, which Japanese legend says will give one health and longevity if one folds 1,000 of them. On one of her paper cranes Sadako wrote: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”

    Unfortunately, Sadako died without recovering her health, but her cranes have indeed flown all over the world. In Santa Barbara, for example, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria Retreat Center have created a beautiful Sadako Peace Garden, where each year on August 6th, the anniversary of the day Hiroshima was bombed, a commemoration is held comprised of music, poetry and reflections.

    In the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, groups of students visit the Children’s Peace Monument. I watched several groups of students pause in front of the statue to sing and pay their respects to the memory of Sadako and other child victims. All around the statue were brightly-colored strands of paper cranes, brought in honor of Sadako and other innocent children.

    The Peace Memorial Cenotaph in the park contains a listing of all the people known to have died as a result of the bombing. Inscribed on the cenotaph are these words: “Let all souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil.” Many people come to the cenotaph, bow and pray for those who died as a result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Through the cenotaph one can see a Peace Flame first lit in 1964. When all nuclear weapons are abolished, the flame will be extinguished.

    On the grounds of the Peace Memorial Park is a museum, which tells the story of the bombing of Hiroshima from the perspective of the victims – those who were under the bomb, the people of the city. With the city rebuilt and beautiful, the museum is an important reminder of the tragedy of the bombing, which caused some 70,000 deaths immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945.

    The most impressive part of the experience of being in Hiroshima, though, is not the statues, the cenotaph, the peace flame or the museum exhibits. It is the survivors of the bombing with their remarkable spirit of forgiveness. Many of the survivors have mastered English and other languages so as to be able to travel the world and share their memories of the bombing. They do so in order to prevent their past from becoming someone else’s future. Though the survivors are growing elderly, their good will and their concern for the future is evident. They deserve our respect and our commitment to creating a world without nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Hiroshima: City of Hope

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), will give the keynote address at an international peace symposium to be held in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 25. This event is organized by Chugoku Shimbun to commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center. The symposium is entitled “Toward a Nuclear-Free World: Spreading Hiorshima’s Message.”

    Mr. Krieger has been to Hiroshima on many occasions in the past. “This city is a special place, made sacred by the pain, suffering, forgiveness and perseverance of the survivors of the atomic bomb. I consider it an honor to be invited to speak here. I am truly humbled,” said Krieger.

    He continued, “In my speech, entitled, ‘Hiroshima: City of Hope,’ I wish to tell the hibakusha (surviving victims of the atomic bombings) that their efforts and messages matter and that their words and deeds have touched people’s hearts throughout the world, including my own.”

    Mr. Krieger’s keynote address at the symposium is one of many continuing efforts by The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to build momentum throughout the world towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. According to Krieger, “It’s critically important that no other city or country will ever suffer the same experiences and devastation caused by nuclear weapons such as those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the far more powerful weapons that exist today.”

    While in Hiroshima, Mr. Krieger will meet with Tadatoshi Akiba, the former Mayor of Hiroshima and current Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI). Through the MPI, eight international non-governmental organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, are able to work with middle power governments to encourage the nuclear weapons states to take immediate, practical steps that reduce nuclear dangers, and commence negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Krieger will also meet with Ambassador Yasuyoshi Komizo, the new Director of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation. In a recent speech, Amabassador Komizo expressed his belief that a nuclear free world would require a new and reliable security framework based on a sense of community on a global scale and built upon mutual trust between people, replacing the current system of nuclear deterrence based on a reality of distrust and built upon the threat of nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Krieger will stress that “The hibakusha have returned from that place of horror with hope in their hearts. By their willingness to forgive and by their constant efforts to end the nuclear weapons era, they have nurtured hope and kept it alive for all these years. It will soon be up to the next generations to carry on working for a world free of nuclear weapons in the spirit of the hibakusha.”

    A transcript of Mr. Krieger’s speech can be found here.

  • Two Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerThere are two basic and quite disparate ways in which nuclear weapons are viewed.  The first is that these weapons provide security and power to their possessors.  I would call this the view of the Nuclear Nine – the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons – and their allies.  The second is that nuclear weapons undermine the security of their possessors and must be abolished.  I would call this the humane view of the hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombings).

    The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is based upon nuclear deterrence, which is a hypothesis about human communications and behavior.  Nuclear deterrence is the threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons if another country commits a prohibited act.  Such an act might be a nuclear attack, but it could encompass a much broader range of prohibited acts.  One major problem with nuclear deterrence is that it is unproven to work under all circumstances.  It requires rational leaders, and not all leaders are rational at all times.  Further, it requires a territory to retaliate against, thus making it inapplicable to terrorist organizations.  The bottom line with nuclear deterrence is that it might or might not work.  There are no guarantees, and it could fail spectacularly.

    Nations rely upon nuclear deterrence at their peril.  It is a concept that is intellectually bankrupt.  I would equate nuclear deterrence to the French Maginot Line. Prior to World War II, the Maginot Line was highly praised for its high-tech defensive capabilities.  However, when the Germans chose to invade and occupy France, they simply went around the Maginot Line and it provided no defense to France.  Nuclear weapons are a Maginot Line in the Mind; that is, they provide a false sense of security based on a belief in the effectiveness of threatening mass murder.  I fear this will not be understood by political and military leaders until nuclear deterrence fails and that line in the mind proves useless for defense, as surely it will if the status quo continues.

    The hibakusha perspective, on the other hand, is based upon the immorality and illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as well as the uncertainty and unreliability of nuclear deterrence.  Can there be any doubt that weapons that cannot differentiate between civilians and combatants and that cause suffering to generations yet unborn are immoral and illegal?  Further, if nuclear deterrence were to fail, as it has come close to doing on numerous occasions, there would be catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

    At the relatively mild end of the spectrum (but, of course, not mild at all), cities and countries would be destroyed, as happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At the most severe end of the spectrum, nuclear war could be an extinction event for human beings and other forms of complex life.  To describe the destructive potential of nuclear weapons, philosopher John Somerville coined the word omnicide, meaning the death of all.  In between these degrees of nuclear annihilation, there is the possibility of global nuclear famine, which atmospheric scientists predict would result from a relatively “small” nuclear war using only 100 Hiroshima-size weapons that could lead to a billion deaths by starvation.

    Which is the better perspective?  The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is not sustainable.  It may provide a false security for some countries, but it provides insecurity for the vast majority of countries as well as for all humans, including those living in Nuclear Nine countries and their allies.  This perspective encourages nuclear proliferation, nuclear brinkmanship, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war.  The perspective of the hibakusha, on the other hand, would level the playing field and fulfill the obligation for nuclear disarmament, which is an important element in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It is a far more sensible, decent, humane and prudent perspective.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • References to Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons and a Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons

    This list does not include references from statements delivered in Arabic or Russian. Full statements available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

    Individual statements

    Algeria

    24 April: “The conference held in Oslo in March on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons served once again to provide evidence of the devastating, long-term, irreversible effects of nuclear weapons.” (translation)

    Argentina

    4 April: “Finally, we reiterate the importance our country places on initiatives concerning the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in the context of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. In this regard, we reiterate the firm commitment of Argentina to these initiatives, remembering that the ultimate end goal in these areas is liberation from the scourge of nuclear weapons for all mankind.” (translation)

    Austria

    24 April: “Austria is of the view that the discourse about nuclear weapons needs to be fundamentally changed. We will only manage the challenges posed by nuclear weapons if we move away from a debate that is still dominated by outdated military security concepts originating from cold war enemy and threat perceptions. Instead, we need to draw conclusions from our common understanding that any use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic consequences and be devastating in its effects for the whole world and all of humankind. The conference that took place on the topic of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Oslo in March was an important milestone in developing this discourse further and we look forward to continuing these discussions on future occasions.”

    25 April: “Austria is convinced that it is necessary and overdue to put the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the center of our debate, including in the NPT. Nuclear weapons are not just a security policy issue for a few states but an issue of serious concern for the entire international community. The humanitarian, environmental, health, economic and developmental consequences of any nuclear weapons explosion would be devastating and global and any notion of adequate preparedness or response is an illusion.”

    “We are highly appreciative that the government of Norway provided the international community with an opportunity for an in-depth and enlightening discussion on this important topic. The discourse needs to be furthered. We look forward to the follow-up conference in Mexico and to other future occasions. Austria was pleased to participate in and contribute to the joint statement that was delivered by South Africa on behalf of over 70 states yesterday.”

    “I would like to stress that in Austria’s view, a key motivation behind the NPT and the entire nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime is the humanitarian imperative: to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, to eliminate this existential threat from the face of the earth and to make sure that unacceptable humanitarian consequences from these weapons do not occur. Arguments that this discourse may in any way distract or divert from the NPT implementation are therefore unconvincing and misguided.”

    Australia

    22 April: “Australia remains deeply concerned by the risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. The discussions at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo this year, in which Australia participated, illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. This is why we strive to realise the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, including through implementation of the 2010 Action Plan. Australia welcomes the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

    25 April: “Australia acknowledges South Africa’s contribution to this meeting through its statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. As we noted in our general debate statement, the discussions at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo this year, in which Australia participated, illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation … Australia welcomes the offer of fellow NPDI member Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

    Bangladesh

    23 April: “We remain deeply concerned about the possible catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. We support the process that began in Oslo recently to address the issue. Furthermore, realizing the goals of disarmament could benefit us with both peace and development dividends, by saving millions of lives and diverting our valuable resources from armament to addressing pressing development needs.”

    Belgium

    23 April: “Belgium repeatedly expressed deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and reaffirmed the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law, while [being] convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism.”

    Brazil

    23 April: “Brazil welcomed the Norwegian initiative to convene the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of a Nuclear Weapon Detonation. This issue is an important component of the NPT and we very much regret that the NWS decided not to be represented at the event. We look forward to their revisiting this position with respect to the follow-up Conference, to be held in Mexico. We also look forward to further impetus being given to the international movement to delegitimize the very existence of nuclear weapons.”

    Canada

    25 April: “Canada shares the concern expressed in South Africa’s earlier statement about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Canada welcomed the March 2013 conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo, as an opportunity for valuable fact-based discussions on these consequences and on humanitarian preparedness for a nuclear weapons detonation. We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

    Chile

    23 April: “Article VI [of the NPT], which requires nuclear disarmament and the elaboration of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, has not been implemented.”

    “The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons showed that there is no possibility of preparation against an offensive nuclear weapon detonation … this reality should be reflected in this process.” (translation)

    China

    22 April: “China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and [has] actively promoted the establishment of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

    WP.29: “The complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons, getting rid of the danger of nuclear war and the attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, serve the common interests and benefits of humankind.”

    “For the attainment of the ultimate goal of general and comprehensive nuclear disarmament, the international community should develop, at the appropriate juncture, a viable long-term plan comprising phased actions, including the conclusion of a convention on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

    Costa Rica

    23 April: “Costa Rica and Malaysia have presented a model nuclear weapons convention. This proposal prohibits the use, threat of use, possession, development, testing, deployment and transfer of nuclear weapons and provides a phased program for the elimination of these weapons under effective international control. We believe this could be a starting point for negotiations to create an instrument capable of strengthening confidence in verification and ensuring the supervision of the dismantling and final reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”

    “We express our appreciation to [OPANAL] for its work for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, in particular the Declaration of Member States in which they express their conviction to join the efforts of the international community to move towards negotiation of a universal instrument banning nuclear weapons.”

    “We cannot fail to mention the humanitarian impact that a nuclear explosion would cause. We fully endorse the joint statement read by South Africa. In 2012 we joined a similar statement both in Vienna and in the First Committee. A few weeks ago in Oslo, we found that it is not possible to prepare for a nuclear explosion and that the consequences of that would be unimaginable.” (translation)

    Cuba

    22 April: “Cuba gives special priority to nuclear disarmament and highlights the need to adopt a legally binding international instrument that completely prohibits nuclear weapons … The urgent need to move towards nuclear disarmament is a growing demand of the international community. The necessary steps should be taken for the immediate commencement of negotiations allowing the early adoption of an international convention on nuclear disarmament.” (translation)

    Denmark

    23 April: “At previous meetings Denmark has joined the group of countries behind a statement expressing deep concern by the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects that could follow from the use of nuclear weapons; and so again at this PrepCom with the statement presented by South Africa. In our view this third-track approach to disarmament and non-proliferation is not meant to undermine existing multilateral or bilateral nuclear disarmament mechanisms. They have indeed produced reductions that we welcome. Nor is it meant to reinterpret well-established international humanitarian law. We hope for a fact-based discussion to expand the group of concerned countries, including with the P5, and to increase awareness of these humanitarian consequences.”

    Ecuador

    23 April: “[T]he existence of nuclear weapons in the world represents a serious threat to human security and the survival of humanity. The only option is to eradicate this threat through the total and complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    “Ecuador condemns and expresses its frustration and deep concern about the blockade and paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament that has lasted more than 15 years. It is imperative to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which provides for their destruction without delay.”

    “In compliance with Article VI of the NPT, and in order to ensure nuclear disarmament and the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, Ecuador advocates the need to start negotiations to adopt a convention that provides an international legal framework, complementary to existing steps, with deadlines and strict verification systems.”

    “I wish to conclude with a reference to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, whose use would be catastrophic for mankind … We join the Joint Declaration of a large group of countries noting the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, their incompatibility with international humanitarian law and the urgent need for a ban and destruction of arsenals.”

    “Congratulations to Norway for its leadership on the issue. We strongly support the International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, organized in Oslo on 4 and 5 March this year with great success and international support. 127 states and various international organizations and civil society organizations participated, showing that there is a growing global concern about the effects of nuclear detonations, and that it is a matter of interest and critical importance for all human beings.”

    “The Conference was informed that the use of nuclear weapons would cause unacceptable devastation to human life and health, the environment, to economies, development, infrastructure and more; that there is no possibility of appropriate national or international response to such a catastrophe; and that this danger and fundamental challenge to the survival of humanity and the planet must be addressed through prevention.”

    “We welcome the conference to follow up on the results of Oslo that will take place in Mexico in the coming year. Ecuador will continue to work with other states on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, in order to build an alternative to the dependence of states on nuclear weapons, to delegitimize the use and possession of nuclear weapons, and to emphasize that the use of nuclear weapons causes unacceptable harm to humanity and the planet as a whole.” (translation)

    Egypt

    22 April: “[T]he consequences of nuclear weapons, including the humanitarian consequences, do not stop at borders but they are a matter of threat to everyone and it is the concern of the whole humanity to usher nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapon States indeed say that they do recognize the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, but the question that awaits a satisfactory reply is what has been done to remove those weapons.”

    24 April: “The negotiation of a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame ending in 2025, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention, is necessary and should commence without any further delay.”

    “Egypt, together with more than 70 States, delivered a statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This statement, which is gaining the world’s attention, makes clear the unacceptable consequences of any nuclear detonation, whether by design, miscalculation or accident. Given that the only guarantee that nuclear weapons are never to be used again is their total elimination, the continued existence of nuclear weapons represents a threat to humanity.”

    “Last month some 127 States and several United Nations agencies attended the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in Oslo in early March. It is not at all surprising that the Oslo conference concluded that the historical experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has demonstrated the devastating immediate and long-term effects of such weapons; and that while political circumstances have changed, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons remains. Unfortunately, the nuclear-weapon States chose not to attend this important conference which is highly regrettable – hopefully, these States will attend the next such conference which shall be hosted by Mexico.”

    “Egypt reiterates its full support to the NAM commitment to vigorously pursue the following priorities leading to the Review Conference in 2015, in full cooperation with all States Parties to the Treaty … 3) Prompt commencement of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, the route to realizing a world free from nuclear weapons by the year 2025.”

    Ghana

    24 April: “In agreement with the conclusion of the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, we wish to remind all states that none is safe from a nuclear weapon accident should it occur.”

    Finland

    25 April: “The humanitarian impacts of the use of nuclear weapons would be most catastrophic and indiscriminate. Such weapons should never be used. In our view, a nuclear-weapon-free world is a far-reaching goal, but a self-evident one. We cannot afford to lose any time in our efforts towards this important goal.”

    Indonesia

    25 April: “[W]e emphasize the necessity to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay.”

    Iran

    25 April: “[T]aking into account the abovementioned measures and principles and also the fact that government support for a convention eliminating nuclear weapons has grown significantly in recent years, I believe it is high time to start negotiation on a Nuclear Weapons Convention in the CD as a matter of top priority. Such a convention must legally prohibit, once and for all, the possession, development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by any country and provide for the destruction of such inhumane weapons.”

    23 April: “The international community cannot wait till the horrors of the nuclear weapons happen and must set a deadline and a target date for the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. Such a cut-off date could enable the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on Nuclear Weapons Convention and conclude it as soon as possible as the highest priority.”

    Ireland

    23 April: “The wider UN community’s sense of frustration at the slow pace of disarmament is clear … we see it in the groundswell of support for a meaningful discussion around the humanitarian impact of a nuclear detonation, whether this is caused by accident, miscalculation or design.”

    “Ireland welcomes the constructive meeting held in Oslo in March, and looks forward to the follow-on Conference later this year in Mexico. The clear message which emerged from Oslo is that humanity would be powerless to respond to the uniquely destructive power which a nuclear detonation would unleash. We encourage the nuclear weapons states to engage in this process. Their absence from Oslo was, perhaps, a missed opportunity and we hope they will be present in Mexico.”

    25 April: “Concrete progress in a number of the areas covered by Action 5 would also go some way to addressing the many humanitarian concerns expressed by Governments at the recent Oslo Conference. These are important concerns, not expressed lightly. They are the concerns of the majority of UN member states.”

    “It is a matter of regret that the nuclear weapons states were not present at Oslo to listen to these concerns expressed by Governments and civil society. The message from Oslo was nevertheless clear: humanity will be powerless to respond to the uniquely destructive power which a nuclear detonation would unleash. This was the message delivered again yesterday by our fellow NAC-member South Africa on behalf of seventy-eight NPT states Parties. There is a growing voice from governments and civil society on this issue which should occupy a central place in our deliberations. It is crucial that those who choose to possess these terrible weapons heed these concerns and we encourage them to attend the meeting which our fellow NAC member Mexico will host next year.”

    “We can and must do more to get the disarmament commitments back on track, to begin the world leading to genuine disarmament negotiations, be they for a single, multilaterally negotiated instrument or a series of mutually reinforcing agreements.”

    Japan

    22 April: “As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan actively contributed to the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March. With strengthened resolve to seek a nuclear-weapons-free world, we continue to advance disarmament and non-proliferation education to inform the world and the next generation of the dreadful realities of nuclear devastation.”

    “Given the awful humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use, it is an urgent priority as well as a responsible approach to the present state of affairs to firmly implement concrete measures contained in the 2010 NPT Action Plan regarding the CTBT, an FMCT and further reductions of nuclear arsenals in order to substantially reduce this risk.”

    Kazakhstan

    23 April: “The catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences from nuclear tests in Semipalatinsk – and from other nuclear test sites around the globe – demonstrate that the aftermaths of any use of nuclear weapons are uncontrollable in time and space. Here, I would like to note that development, production or use of nuclear weapons is increasingly being seen worldwide as incompatible with international humanitarian law. The recent Oslo Conference underscored the potential of humanitarian approaches in this dimension.”

    “It is our firm conviction that total elimination of all nuclear arsenals is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapons convention or package of agreements as it was suggested by the United Nations Secretary-General in his Five-Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament acquires particular significance in terms of achieving this noble goal. I take the opportunity to note that Kazakhstan’s initiative to draft a Universal Declaration of a Nuclear Weapon-Free World within the UN is considered as one of the effective vessels to facilitate adoption of a Convention.”

    25 April: “We acknowledge a consolidating role of the Oslo Conference of March 2013 in achieving a total and unconditional elimination of all nuclear weapons – a noble aim broadly supported by the majority of states.”

    Kenya

    23 April: “Kenya welcomes the outcome of the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted by Norway on 4 and 5 March, 2013. It was indeed a significant event. The high number of countries that took part in the evidence-based discussions on these effects highlights the interests and concerns of the wider international community. It reinforces our view that nations serious enough about the elimination of nuclear weapons need to start negotiations now on a treaty to ban them.”

    “We believe the initiative can be pivotal in the delegitimization of nuclear weapons in the minds of people. Nuclear deterrence really is threatening mass extermination. The impact of use of nuclear weapons or an accident at a nuclear weapons facility would be catastrophic. Their use would violate Resolutions of the UN General Assembly that have repeatedly condemned their use as an international crime.”

    “Needless to state, the debate on humanitarian concerns can contribute to meaningful nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measures as well as to the implementation of the NPT Action Plan.”

    Malaysia

    23 April: “Malaysia remains convinced that the total elimination of nuclear weapons should remain on top of the international agenda … Malaysia looks forward to the Nuclear-Weapons States to fulfil their commitments to report to the 2014 PrepCom on the steps that they are undertaking towards the elimination of their nuclear weapons. This however does not preclude us from pursuing negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.”

    25 April: “Malaysia is already a party to the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. While these two Conventions were negotiated and finalised many years ago, we are disappointed at the resistance and reluctance of some States to initiate and support a similar Convention on the complete and total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    Mexico

    23 April: “The NPT preamble refers to the conscience of the international community in relation to the terrible consequences of nuclear war visited upon all mankind and the consequent need to avoid the danger of such a war and to take safety measures for the people. The mere existence of nuclear weapons represents a real risk to international security, because as long as they exist, there will be players who will want to own them and use or threaten to use them.”

    “This March, 127 countries met with representatives of international organizations and civil society in Oslo to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. To expand on this, Mexico will convene, in 2014, a follow-up conference to the discussions had in Oslo. We hope that all NPT parties will be involved … our interest in strengthening this agreement and forging new agreements has its foundation in the humanitarian imperative.” (translation)

    24 April: “It is necessary to mainstream the humanitarian perspective of a possible nuclear weapon detonation. The discussion that took place in Oslo will move in this direction and prevent nuclear weapons from being used again and from causing catastrophic humanitarian crises anywhere in the world. Mexico is organizing a follow-up conference, which will take place in early 2014. The participation of 127 countries represented in the discussion, and the growing interest generated by this issue, may be the germ of a process to move substantially towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.” (translation)

    Netherlands

    23 April: “The Netherlands fully subscribes to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The NPT is the essential instrument to achieve that goal. The discussion on humanitarian consequences in Oslo recently reminded us again about the devastating effects of these weapons and hence the importance of making progress towards that objective.”

    New Zealand

    22 April: “New Zealand takes some heart from the fact that, this year, we have the opportunity to advance collective nuclear disarmament responsibilities in several fora, including via the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and the open-ended working group.”

    25 April: “The recognition by the 2010 Action Plan of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons was, for New Zealand, a cautionary – and necessary – reminder of the real world implications of the work we undertake in this, and other, nuclear disarmament fora. The Conference hosted by the Norwegian Government in Oslo this past March served to reinforce the Review Conference’s expression of concern by exploring the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in a more systematic way and one which puts the real issues of human security into the fore. Its key message – that no state or international organisation could feasibly address the humanitarian impact of a nuclear weapon detonation – must underpin all of our work on nuclear disarmament and would serve to underline its urgency. New Zealand looks forward to the follow-up conference to be convened in Mexico next year and welcomes the Government of Mexico’s initiative on this … New Zealand fully subscribes to the statement already delivered by South Africa in the general debate here on behalf of over 70 countries concerning the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.”

    Nigeria

    23 April: “We will continue to emphasize that the existential threat posed to mankind by nuclear weapons, including their possible use or threat of use, remains unacceptable. The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted in March 2013 by the Government of Norway made clear that the detonation of a nuclear device would have grave humanitarian consequences that will spread beyond national borders and significantly impact human beings across regions and across the world.”

    Norway

    23 April: “The NPT review conference in 2010 referred explicitly to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences any use of nuclear weapons would have. This was an important message from the world community. Since 2010, we have seen the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons increasingly being recognized as a fundamental, and global, concern that must be at the core of all our deliberations regarding nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.”

    “In March this year the Government of Norway hosted an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The aim of the Conference was to provide an arena for the international community to have a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences that would result from a nuclear weapon detonation. The conference focused on what actually happens on the ground after a nuclear detonation.”

    “The consequences of a nuclear detonation are relevant to practitioners in such diverse fields as health services, development, environment, finance and emergency preparedness. So far there has been no global arena in which to begin to discuss these issues. This is why Norway decided to organize the Conference, and to invite a wide range of stakeholders. All interested states, as well as UN humanitarian organizations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, representatives of civil society and other relevant actors were invited to the Conference.”

    “The Conference was held over two days and included presentations by international experts and relevant national and international stakeholders concerning three key aspects: 1) the immediate humanitarian impact of nuclear detonations, 2) the wider and more long-term developmental, health and environmental consequences, 3) preparedness, including plans and existing capacity to respond to this type of disaster.”

    “128 states met at the Conference, together with UN organisations, the ICRC, IFRC and civil society. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted the Conference. The High Commissioner for Refugees, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Director of OCHA in Geneva, the Secretary General of Norwegian People’s Aid and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons addressed the Conference’s opening session.”

    “The broad and active participation at the Oslo Conference reflects the recognition that the catastrophic effect of a nuclear detonation is an issue of concern and relevance to all.”

    “The main conclusion from the conference is that no state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in any meaningful way. No existing national or international emergency system would be able to provide adequate assistance to the victims.”

    “We welcome Mexico’s offer to host a Conference to further discuss these issues. We are looking forward to continuing to broaden the discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This is an issue that affects us all.”
    (See rest of statement)

    Philippines

    22 April: “NPT States Parties underscored their deep concern for the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons … It is for these reasons that the Philippines welcomes the international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons which was hosted by Norway last March. The conference concluded that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapon use would be unacceptable and urged States to begin work to outlaw these weapons. We also welcome the follow-up meeting to be hosted by Mexico at a future date.”

    “Now is also the time to set in motion negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC). Some argue that a NWC would move the focus away from the NPT. On the contrary, it could get the ball rolling as it ensures full implementation of the NPT.”
    “A NWC is the only comprehensive, universal and non-discriminatory way towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. An international conference can be held in the near future that will set the parameters for the elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibit their production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and provide for the destruction of such weapons within a specified time frame or timeline.”

    “The upcoming High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament would be a good opportunity to drum up support for such a Convention. I urge States that have provided us with a model NWC to take the lead once again in jumpstarting discussions for a NWC.”

    Republic of Korea

    25 April: “In view of the risk of accidental nuclear war and its indiscriminate catastrophic consequences, it is the collective duty of all NPT State Parties to fulfil their obligations under Article VI of the NPT.”

    Slovakia

    25 April: “We also pay due attention and seriously consider the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed ‘deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’. There would be no single country that could address it alone. This issue extends discussions on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The international conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons held recently in Oslo has been an example of it.”

    “We must work together to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental. That is why we continue to support the process that would lead to the total elimination of nuclear arsenals, including the reasons for their existence thus eliminating effectively the above threat.”

    South Africa

    22 April: “South Africa shares the deep concern expressed by the vast majority of States Parties to the NPT about the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Along with many others, we remain convinced that nuclear weapons do not guarantee security, but rather detract from it. As long as these weapons exist, and vertical and horizontal proliferation persists, humanity will continue to face the threat of catastrophe and mass annihilation.”

    Sri Lanka

    22 April: “The situation which prevails in the Korean Peninsula reminds us of the urgency of the call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons since we firmly believe that total elimination of nuclear weapons from the world is the only possible way for the survival of humanity. It is for this reason that we continue to stress that states should move forward towards total elimination and the absolute ban of the nuclear arsenal.”

    Sweden

    23 April: “The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, which is why we must work towards their elimination.”

    Switzerland

    22 April: “I would especially like to emphasise the very positive and encouraging Oslo Conference last March on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This conference is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference. Indeed, the 2010 outcome had introduced the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament as a new avenue to be explored to facilitate the implementation of Article VI of the NPT. It therefore seems crucial to us that all States Parties to the NPT engage in the discussion of this dimension. My delegation fully associates itself with the statement that will subsequently be made on this issue by South Africa on behalf of a group of States.”

    25 April: “In 2010, all Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) expressed their deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. Our delegation associates itself fully with the joint statement delivered yesterday by South Africa on behalf of 77 States. Switzerland remains convinced that nuclear weapons do not generate security but are a threat to international as well as human security.”

    “Two-thirds of the UN membership as well as representatives of important international and non-governmental organisations met last month in Oslo to give further consideration to this deep concern expressed in 2010. The main conclusion of this conference is clear: no matter how well governments or humanitarian actors prepare, the immediate as well as the wider effects of the use of nuclear weapons cannot be mitigated and the consequences would be unacceptable. Efforts must therefore be redoubled to prevent any nuclear detonation – be it caused by accident, miscalculation or wilful intent. We welcome this fact-based, fresh and long overdue humanitarian approach. We are also looking forward to deepening discussions on this issue, including at the follow-up meeting that Mexico will host.”

    “The establishment of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) by resolution A/RES/67/56 is a reaction to the continuing deadlock in the CD. This working group offers the possibility to work together collectively and inclusively to advance nuclear disarmament. Just like the Oslo Conference, this working group is in full conformity with the spirit and letter of the NPT. In this regard, our delegation would reject to qualify as ‘distraction’ any efforts undertaken in good faith to achieve the common goals enshrined in this treaty.”

    “It is necessary to develop more concrete measures and instruments in order to prevent and ban the use of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them, as all other weapons of mass destruction. Switzerland will continue to contribute to efforts towards progressive delegitimization of nuclear weapons in order to pave the way for our final and common objective of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Thailand

    23 April: “We also welcome the result of the Conference on Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo in March this year, which further illustrated the devastating effect of the use of nuclear weapons on human life as well as the environment. We hope that such abhorrent scenarios have rendered any contemplation to engage nuclear arsenals as irresponsible, reprehensible and unthinkable.”

    “More broadly, Thailand hopes that the fresh initiatives introduced at the UN General Assembly last year will revitalize the Conference on Disarmament and looks forward to the commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material, as well as a nuclear weapons convention, which should be held in an inclusive manner.”

    Turkey

    22 April: “[W]e remain concerned by the risk that nuclear weapons pose for humanity. The participants of the recent Oslo Conference have been further acquainted with the horrific consequences of a nuclear use or accidental detonation. Turkey believes that a robust awareness should be raised at the informational level so that future generations do not have to fear for the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Turkey welcomed the discussions at the Oslo Conference and looks forward to actively participating to the follow-up.”

    Ukraine

    23 April: “Ukraine considers the total elimination of nuclear weapons to be the only absolute guarantee against the scourge of nuclear warfare and supports the call for the immediate adoption of the comprehensive international agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. This ultimate goal requires a consistent long-term approach with specific practical steps and effective disarmament measures to be taken by the international community in a transparent, non-discriminatory, verifiable and irreversible manner, building a system of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    United Arab Emirates

    22 April: “UAE supports the international efforts in addressing the humanitarian aspects of using nuclear weapons with an objective, in the long run, to ban the use, threat and eventually owning of these weapons.”

    Joint statements

    Humanitarian initiative

    24 April: (On behalf of 78 nations) “Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. While this has been known since nuclear weapons were first developed and is reflected in various UN resolutions and multilateral instruments, it has not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years. Although it constitutes the raison d’être of the NPT, which cautions against the ‘devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of people’, this issue has consistently been ignored in the discourse on nuclear weapons.”
    (See rest of statement)

    International Committee of the Red Cross

    24 April: “In 2010, the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) took a ground-breaking step in recognizing the ‘catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and the relevance of international humanitarian law in this regard. This step has inspired a renewed focus on the horrific human suffering that would result from the use of nuclear weapons and the implications of such weapons on the environment.”

    “The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) welcomes this development. In our view, an informed view on these weapons must include a detailed grasp of the immediate consequences of nuclear weapons on human health and on medical and other infrastructure. Equally important is an understanding of the longer-term effects on health and the implications for the world’s climate and food production. Recent studies by the ICRC, IPPNW and other organizations have highlighted these implications.”

    “It was a deep and profound concern about these consequences that led the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to make a historic appeal on nuclear weapons in 2011. In it, the Movement called on States to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, regardless of their views on the legality of such weapons, and to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binging international agreement, based on existing commitments and international obligations.”
    (See rest of statement)

    League of Arab States

    WP.40: “The Arab States welcome the events on nuclear disarmament that will take place in 2013. They affirm the importance of the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013, at which it was noted that no one was capable of addressing the consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation, regardless of whether such a weapon was detonated deliberately, as a result of a misjudgement or unintentionally.”

    “The attention of the Conference on Disarmament should be drawn to the importance of establishing a subcommittee responsible for the immediate commencement of negotiations on the formulation of a nuclear disarmament treaty, with a view to gradually eliminating nuclear weapons within a specified period of time. That treaty would outlaw the development, production, stockpiling and use of such weapons and provide for their destruction, and ensure that removal is complete, non-discriminatory and verifiable.”

    New Agenda Coalition

    22 April: “The 2010 NPT Review Conference expressed ‘deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and reaffirmed ‘the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law’. Furthermore, a significant number of States highlighted this concern at the 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee and at the 2012 General Assembly First Committee session.”

    “In March this year, Norway hosted an International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons aimed at developing a greater awareness and understanding of the catastrophic consequences of their use. Mexico has offered to host a follow-up conference to continue this long overdue discussion. Given that it is abundantly clear that no State or group of States can mitigate the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation on civilian populations, it is our expectation that all NPT States Parties seize the opportunity to permanently rid our world from the threat posted by nuclear weapons.”

    “All States Parties must seize the opportunity of this PrepCom to begin work in earnest on the construction of a comprehensive legally-binding framework of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. Such a framework should include clearly defined benchmarks, timelines, and be backed by a strong system of verification. Given the threat posed to all of humanity by these instruments of mass annihilation, it is time for use to act now, for tomorrow may be too late.”

    WP.27: “Reiterating the Treaty’s recognition of the devastation that would be visited upon all of humanity by a nuclear war, the 2010 Review Conference expressed its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and asserted the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”

    “Since the 2010 Review Conference, awareness has been growing about the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear detonation, as most recently illustrated by the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which was held in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013. Given the indiscriminate and disproportionate effects of nuclear weapons, the humanitarian concerns should inform actions and decisions during the 2015 review cycle and beyond.”

    “Furthermore, the 2015 Review Conference should work towards the construction of a comprehensive framework of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. In order to be transparent, efficient and credible, such a legally binding framework for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons must include clearly defined benchmarks and timelines, backed by a strong system of verification.”

    Non-Aligned Movement

    22 April: “The Group … emphasizes the necessity to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay.”

    24 April: “The Group also reiterates its firm commitment to work for convening a high-level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

    25 April: “The Group emphasizes the necessity to start negotiations, without further delay, on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

    “[T]he Group reiterates its firm commitment to work for convening a high-level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

    WP.14: “The nuclear-weapon States should be urged to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of their nuclear weapons within a specified time framework, including a nuclear weapons convention.”

    “An international conference at ‘the earliest possible date’ to achieve agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame, including, in particular, a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons convention).”

    Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative

    23 April: “The members of the NPDI participated in the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons that took place in Oslo, Norway, on March 4 and 5, 2013. The NPDI remains deeply concerned by the risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and by the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. The discussions at the Oslo Conference illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

    24 April: “[I]n view of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of a use of a nuclear weapon, they simply cannot be considered to be just a weapon like any other.”

    “We encourage all States parties to contribute to raising awareness, in particular amongst the younger generation, of the tragic consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.”

    WP.4: “In view of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, it is imperative that the more than 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever. Members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative thus see the need for determined steps by the nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament, with the final objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world.”

    OPANAL

    24 April: “[T]he Conference recently held in Oslo … introduced the humanitarian vision of the use of nuclear weapons, bringing a breath of fresh air to these debates, a breath full of hope. By exposing the catastrophic consequences of using any nuclear weapon, the raising of awareness regarding the threat that they pose to the world would be promoted. Humanity should not continue under this risk as a consequence of the security policies lacking an alternative to replace nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”

    “We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue, a country well known for its leadership in nuclear disarmament.”

    “With the spirit to see the future positively, I am pleased to reiterate that Latin American and Caribbean States adopted the 2011 Declaration, a document that I presented to the UNGA First Committee in the same year, in which they agreed to join the efforts of the international community to take forward the negotiation of a legally-binding instrument aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons. Today, this consensus is one of the guidelines of the Agency’s agenda.”

    Tim Wright is Coordinator of ICAN Australia.

  • H.R. 1650 – Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2013

    113th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 1650

    To provide for nuclear weapons abolition and economic conversion in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992, while ensuring environmental restoration and clean-energy conversion.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    April 18, 2013

    Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

    A BILL

    To provide for nuclear weapons abolition and economic conversion in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992, while ensuring environmental restoration and clean-energy conversion.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2013′.

    SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS ABOLITION AND ECONOMIC AND ENERGY CONVERSION.

    (a) In General- The United States Government shall–

    (1) provide leadership to negotiate and enter into a multilateral treaty or other international agreement by the date that is three years after the date of the enactment of this Act that provides for–

    (A) the dismantlement and elimination of all nuclear weapons in every country by not later than 2020; and

    (B) strict and effective international control of such dismantlement and elimination;

    (2) redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to use–

    (A) in converting all nuclear weapons industry employees, processes, plants, and programs smoothly to constructive, ecologically beneficial peacetime activities, including strict control of all fissile material and radioactive waste, during the period in which nuclear weapons must be dismantled and eliminated pursuant to the treaty or other international agreement described in paragraph (1); and

    (B) in addressing human and infrastructure needs, including development and deployment of sustainable carbon-free and nuclear-free energy sources, health care, housing, education, agriculture, and environmental restoration, including long-term radioactive waste monitoring;

    (3) undertake vigorous, good-faith efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military operations; and

    (4) actively promote policies to induce all other countries to join in the commitments described in this subsection to create a more peaceful and secure world.

    (b) Effective Date- Subsection (a)(2) shall take effect on the date on which the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have–

    (1) eliminated such weapons; or

    (2) begun such elimination under established legal requirements comparable to those described in subsection (a).

    Eleanor Holmes Norton represents Washington, DC in the U.S. House of Representatives.

  • Nuclear Myths Could Result in Catastrophe, Historian Warns

    Several ideas about nuclear weapons germinated in America after World War II, continued to sprout roots during the Cold War, and by now have taken full flower. The public rarely questions them, and neither do many scientists, military leaders, politicians or diplomats.

    One: We need these weapons because, should all-out war break out, we’ll need them to overwhelm our enemy and lay waste to its cities. That could win the war for us. Another: Nuclear weapons keep the world stable because they help prevent war in the first place. They have been around for almost 68 years. World War III has failed to ignite in that time. The bombs, it is concluded, have helped keep us safe.

    Or maybe that’s all wrong.  In his new book, Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons, historian Ward Wilson mines historical case studies – some ancient, some recent – to deflate the assumption that enemy leaders will capitulate if we wipe out a horribly large percentage of their urban populations. Reducing a rival country’s cities to smoking rubble on a massive scale, he writes, actually boosts its morale and determination to prevail.

    Wilson’s favorite proof is the behavior of Japan at the end of World War II. Americans generally think the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki spurred Japan to hastily end its fight. Using first-hand accounts of Japanese leaders’ meetings after the bombings and comments in their diaries and memoirs, Wilson concludes the A-bombs weren’t at all decisive. The Japanese had been tolerating the destruction of their cities for months, including the decimation of Tokyo by Allied firebombing. (Wilson argues persuasively that it was the abrupt entry of the Soviet Union into the battle against Japan, which occurred at the same time as Hiroshima, that caused Japanese political and military leaders to lose hope.)

    As for the mission of nuclear bombs to be peacekeepers rather than tools of war, Wilson all but dismisses deterrence theory as a straw man that’s never been proven to frighten a crow. Such theories, he maintains, amount to wishful thinking that is “doubtful from the word go.”

    What about familiar deterrence success stories, such as President John F. Kennedy’s willingness to bring the world to war during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — a strategy of keeping the peace by acting tough? Wilson sees that event, and many others during the Cold War and afterward, as actually a failure of deterrence. Kennedy, he writes, “saw the nuclear deterrence stop sign, saw the horrifying image of nuclear war painted on it, and gunned through the intersection anyway.” We’ve avoided wars mostly out of luck, in spite of ourselves.

    Wilson, 56, attended American University and is a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the California-based Monterey Institute of International Studies. This is his first book, and it’s gained attention rapidly inside nuclear policy circles. The author says he wants to write another one, focusing solely on the weaknesses of deterrence theory, in the year ahead.

    NAPF spoke to Wilson about his belief that accepting old, unchallenged nuclear lessons will surely lead to eventual disaster. The following is an edited version of the conversation.

    KAZEL: You’ve written that after college in 1981 you were hired as a fellow at the Robert F. Kennedy Foundation, and the director, David Hackett — who’d been Bobby Kennedy’s best friend — persuaded you that you had the power to change the world. How did he do that?

    WILSON: He was Kennedy’s friend so he had great authority in my eyes. He took me for a walk by the Martin Luther King Public Library. I can remember children playing all around. He said, [affects a Boston accent], “Wahd, Wahd, what do you care about?” I said, “Nuclear weapons.” He never said, “I want you to do this, or I want you to do that.” Somehow, wordlessly, in the way he framed it, it seemed so clear to me that he expected that I had to do something about this problem – that I was interested in it, and therefore I had the capacity tochange it. I was young and credulous, so I believed him.

    KAZEL: After that you had a conversation with the scientist Freeman Dyson, who gave you a “fundamental insight” into whether nuclear weapons actually are useful or not. What happened there?

    WISLON: I got to know Dyson because I went to a conference on nuclear weapons that encouraged me to do more. Helen Caldicott spoke and [nuclear freeze advocate] Randall Forsberg spoke. Dyson spoke.…

    [Later Dyson] gave me, to look at, a book review that he was writing. In it he talked about the [1982] Falklands War. He said that Great Britain could have nuked Buenos Aires. But even had they done that, they still would have had to send conventional forces to reconquer the Falkland Islands. It hit me really hard that blowing up cities doesn’t occupy territory. It doesn’t put soldiers on the ground who can enforce boundaries, or inspect people walking by, or check papers.

    It suddenly became clear to me, at some intuitive level, that the weapons were limited in the way that they were useful. Yeah, you can blow stuff up, but that doesn’t necessarily get you what you want. After all, the United States and Great Britain blew up Hamburg [in World War II] and they destroyed Dresden, and they bombed Berlin. But that didn’t force Germany to its knees.

    KAZEL: You also read Herman Kahn, and you felt he was incorrect in saying that nuclear weapons were so new and unprecedented that we can’t make predictions about them.  You now say it’s possible to go back to previous wars, even back to the Siege of Carthage [in 152 BC], and conclude that attacking cities doesn’t help to win a war. Why do you think we can look at history that old and think it’s still relevant?

    WILSON: I read this passage from Herman Kahn, and he said, we have so little experience with nuclear weapons – which is true – therefore, everything we think must be theoretical. He [was] essentially making a case for game theory and this logic-based scenario work that was done in the 1950s and ’60s. I said to myself, that can’t be right. War is not fundamentally technological. War is fundamentally a human activity.

    The tools we use to wage war may be different. We ourselves are still the same, largely. I believe human nature changes only very slowly over thousands of years. So if it’s true human beings react to the destruction of a city relatively the same across history, and I can’t think of a reason why they wouldn’t, it should be possible to look at Carthage. It ought to be possible to study the sacking and burning of Liège [in 1468] by Charles the Bold. It ought to be possible to look at the destruction of Magdeburg in 1631 by [Johann Tserclaes count von] Tilly, when he burned the city and 30,000 people died…

    That ought to give you real experiential information. We can imagine what a nuclear war would be like, but essentially it’s all speculation. It’s theory. Maybe it’s right, but maybe it’s wrong. Fundamentally, I’m a pragmatist. I believe in facts. So, this insight [is] that even though the weapons are new, the soldier, the combatants are essentially the same.

    That is why I was not surprised to discover that Hiroshima had not forced the Japanese to surrender at the end of World War II: because I had spent seven years studying history where cities had been truly destroyed. In no case did it ever cause a war to be won.

    KAZEL: Is it your conclusion, after conferring with military people, that our military is still focused on destroying enemy cities if a nuclear war ever happens?

    WILSON: Well, I’ll tell you what I know. At least as late as the Clinton administration, I had a chance to sit down with Lee Butler [retired Air Force general and commander of Strategic Air Command] in his kitchen. He told me what it was like every month…to have someone rush into the room unexpectedly. You don’t have any warning. Some guy runs in and says, “Sir, you’re needed in the War Room.” You go downstairs, and there’s an incoming attack. It’s an exercise – you know it’s an exercise. But even so, all the circumstances are as they would be.

    Then you have this conversation with whomever is playing the President at the White House. You go through your checklist. And you have four options, MAO 1 through 4. Major attack options 1 through 4: 1 is leadership, 2 is leadership plus military, 3 is leadership plus military plus economy, and 4 is leadership plus military plus economy plus civilian population. He said to me that every practice scenario was designed in such a way that you had to recommend MAO 4 – the one in which you target civilians.

    Has the targeting changed since the Clinton administration? I don’t know. I’ve had some conversations with [military] people who very strongly assert that the U.S. doesn’t target civilian populations because that would be “illegal” and that they have lawyers who check the target list for “legality.”

    KAZEL: Under what law?

    WILSON: I don’t know whether it’s a military handbook of conduct or international humanitarian law. I don’t know. But at least as late as the Clinton administration, the [war plan] absolutely called for targeting civilians.

    KAZEL: About three weeks ago, you made a presentation at the Pentagon for the Air Force nuclear staff. Did they discuss if the Air Force still has targeting plans against cities?

    WILSON: No, they were very careful. We had very serious conversations. We didn’t agree. But they took what I had to say very seriously and listened closely, and I listened to them.

    KAZEL: What didn’t they agree about?

    WILSON: Well, at the end, a guy said, “Well, maybe nuclear weapons are the outmoded weapons of the past, but shouldn’t we then be thinking about what weapon we need in order to deter our opponents?”  Obviously that’s their mindset; they’ve been assigned that as their job. But the fact that they couldconsider the notion that nuclear weapons are outmoded, are blundering, clumsy weapons of the past – that seemed to me to be remarkable.

    I think that the whole trend in warfare [emerging today] is away from pointless destruction, which is essentially what nuclear weapons do best, and toward drones and targeted, small [missiles]. Obviously, drone missiles create a whole series of very serious problems in terms of accountability. Even smaller missiles like that have terrible consequences for civilians. However, killing a leader of Al-Qaeda with a Hellfire missile and killing 13 other people who are innocent is considerably different from using a nuclear weapon to kill a leader of Al-Qaeda and killing 130,000 people who are innocent.

    I think the whole trend in warfare is away from “big” weapons, like nuclear weapons, and toward [accuracy]. What terrifies you [as a leader] is the thought that you may die, you may lose control of your regime, not that somebody else you don’t know will die.

    KAZEL:  But even by that reasoning, does that necessarily lead to nuclear disarmament? One could argue that tactical nuclear weapons — anything from artillery shells to antisubmarine nuclear torpedoes — could be developed instead of nuclear arms for use against cities. But that still isn’t nuclear abolition.

    WILSON: Right. But these arguments I’m making by themselves might not be sufficient. Organizations like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and others have been making powerful moral arguments against nuclear weapons for 20, 30, 40 years. That nuclear weapons are so clearly immoral and not very useful makes a powerful combination. By themselves, either argument might or might not be sufficient. In combination, you have an irresistible argument, it seems to me.

    KAZEL: Do you think that the use of any nuclear weapon is immoral?

    WILSON: If you use a nuclear weapon to destroy an asteroid coming towards the world, well, that’s fine. That’s moral. Using a nuclear weapon in almost any setting, anywhere on the globe, probably you’ll kill innocent civilians…By and large, nuclear weapons are so clumsy, so messy, that they almost inevitably kill innocents.

    KAZEL: Why did you decide for your book to veer almost completely away from the moral arguments against nuclear arms and stress the practical, military arguments?

    WILSON: I knew that there have already been so many well-argued, strong moral arguments made over the last 60 years that I can’t do any better than that. This is an area where I thought something new could be said.

    KAZEL: Should antinuclear groups be making more of an effort to emphasize strategic, military arguments, instead of what you call arguments based on “moral outrage”?

    WILSON: Antinuclear groups should do what works. You have to imagine, I’ve been sitting in a room for 30 years thinking about nuclear weapons. I don’t know what motivates people or how to organize a political [movement].

    You know, one of the crucial ingredients to getting the [1997 international landmine ban treaty] was that, at some point, military guys stepped forward and said, “In some circumstances landmines can help, but they’re fundamentally not that useful in a war.” When you combine that with the clear moral cost, and humanitarian impact, it became clear what needed to be done.

    KAZEL: Some analysts argue that emerging nuclear nations view the weapons as a sign of national power and prestige – but that they don’t actually expect to use the weapons. How do we persuade nations such as Iran not to want a nuclear weapon?

    WILSON: The problem is we’ve over-inflated their value. It seemed like a good idea when we were using that over-inflated value to create deterrence, to deter others. The difficulty is now others take that over-inflated value, and they think, “Oh, nuclear weapons are magic. They can keep my country safe no matter what I do, and I can behave in any way that I want to behind this shield. And I need to eat grass in order to be able to get them.”

    The first step in doing something about nuclear weapons is to devalue them, to show they’re not magic, to get people to rethink deterrence. If you go through almost any document about deterrence, and cross it out and put “voodoo” in its place, the document will read essentially the same.

    Another thing about the utility question is a two-part evaluation: the usefulness and the danger. They’re dangerous and they’re not useful in hardly any circumstances, and we just need to do something as fast as we possibly can. If you wait a hundred years, you will ensure that someone is going to use nuclear weapons. Either there will be a fight over resources because of global warming, or there will be so many nations with nuclear weapons that someone will sell a nuclear weapon out the backdoor to a terrorist.

    KAZEL: You recommend that “extraordinary efforts” should be taken to prevent more nations from getting nuclear weapons. Would you support military action against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons?

    WILSON: I wouldn’t support military action against Iran. I think that’s silly. I think it’s absolutely true that every nation that gets nuclear weapons increases the danger, but I don’t think it’s true that the increase in danger means that nation is more powerful.

    Imagine three or four people in your neighborhood felt unsafe, and decided to carry a bottle of nitroglycerine around with them wherever they went. These three or four people, if you bump into them on the street and knock them over and the nitroglycerine explodes, you get killed. So they make your neighborhood more dangerous, but are they really safer? If you want to rob them, you get a gun and stand really close to them and say, “Give me the dough.” Their nitroglycerine doesn’t help because you’re standing right next to them.

    But then imagine over time, more and more people in the neighborhood say, “Hey, this is a great idea,I’ll get a bottle of nitroglycerine.” Each neighbor that gets a bottle of nitroglycerine makes your neighborhood less safe — but it doesn’t necessarily protect any of them or give them power. It doesn’t help, but it clearly hurts. That’s the way I see nuclear weapons. It’s bad that Iran seems to be building a nuclear weapon, but will that give them the power to dominate the Middle East once they have them? No, I don’t think so.

    KAZEL: So, when you say “extraordinary efforts,” would that mean efforts beyond what is being done now?

    WILSON: Yeah, you could take some risks – politically. You could be nice to the Iranians. Now, they are an ancient civilization, with a long tradition of scholarship, very strong religious views, and a unique perspective on religion. Ancient culture, sophisticated, subtle. Very much like France – once much more powerful, dominant culturally in the world.

    My assessment is Iran wants nuclear weapons so they will be treated with the respect they believe they deserve. There’s a lot you can do [diplomatically], and maybe that gets you in trouble on the Right in the United States.

    I really don’t think military action makes much sense. The Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, and then we have an oil crisis and the world economy crashes. Moral issues aside, it’s just stupid policy.

    KAZEL: You recommend in your book a world study of the usefulness of nuclear weapons, and a “full stop” on the development of new nuclear systems. But you don’t recommend nuclear abolition in it. However, in a presentation you made at the UN three weeks ago, you seemed more resolute. You said abolition is not impossible if the worldview of pro-nuclear advocates is questioned. You said abolitionists “clearly have the more convincing case” than proponents of the weapons.

    WILSON: Part of the process of talking about this with a lot of people is that you listen and you find out what they think you’ve missed, or not. The reaction that I’m getting, so far at least, is that people don’t feel there is any serious mistake or flaw [in my arguments]. That’s reassuring, and that makes me feel I can push what I intuitively feel a little bit more.

    KAZEL: You did feel strongly enough about your evidence in the book to recommend that the U.S. and Russia decrease their nuclear weapons to the low hundreds. You also say it’s very dangerous to have nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.

    WILSON: I got in a lot of trouble with the Pentagon for that. I sat at lunch with a squadron commander of one of the missile facilities in Montana. He was talking to me about what it’s like to work in the facility and how you go down underground. I think they have 72 hours on and 72 hours off. They want to have pride in what they do, and they believe that the thing about hair-trigger alert is wrong because they have all these careful rules in place. What they take pride in is making sure you could never have an accident…

    I had to explain to him that I think the problem with hair-trigger alert is not that the U.S. mechanism for maintaining its nuclear forces is prone to breakdown, not that they’re doing a bad job. But I thinkleaders need to have time to think [an urgent situation] over and double-check. Kennedy said if he had been forced to decide about the Cuban Missile Crisis on the first day, he’d have launched the air strikes instead of doing the less-militaristic blockade. The air strikes could have led to nuclear war, since we now know they had tactical nuclear weapons on Cuba.

    People go off half-cocked. They lose their heads. They get overwhelmed by emotion. They want retribution, and when leaders have the power to launch nuclear weapons without a chance for reflection, then that’s a danger.

    Something that causes leaders to be forced to think about it for at least 24 hours, and maybe longer, makes a lot of sense to me. You read history and people make rash decisions. It happens all the time.

    Robert Kazel is a Chicago-based freelance writer and was a participant in the 2012 NAPF Peace Leadership Workshop.

  • Reflections on Omnicide, Nuclear Deterrence and a Maginot Line in the Mind

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

    David KriegerI offer a few reflections in an effort to separate fact from fiction with regard to nuclear weapons, their capacity for devastation and our ability to assure global security by preventing their use.

    First, today’s nuclear arsenals are capable of omnicide, the death of all. In that sense, nuclear weapons are not really weapons but instruments of annihilation. They place all complex life at risk of extinction.

    Omnicide is possible because of the unique capacity of nuclear weapons to cause a “nuclear winter” and to trigger “nuclear famine.” In addition to the ordinary ways that nuclear weapons destroy – blast, fire and radiation – they have the capacity to block sunlight from reaching the earth, shorten growing seasons, and lead to the destruction of crops, resulting in global nuclear famine.

    Second, nuclear weapons are justified by their possessors by their belief in the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.

    We must always keep in mind that nuclear deterrence is not a fact; it is a hypothesis about human behavior. It is a hypothesis that posits rational leaders; and it is, in fact, highly irrational to believe that humans will behave rationally at all times under all conditions. How many national leaders are you aware of who always act rationally, regardless of the circumstances?

    It is also true that humans are fallible and prone to error, even when they construct elaborate safeguards. Examples of human fallibility are found in the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and in numerous accidents with nuclear weapons in transport, such as the refueling accident over Palomares, Spain.

    As Ban Ki-moon said earlier this year in a speech at the Monterey Institute of International Studies: “Nuclear deterrence is not a solution to international peace and stability. It is an obstacle.”

    Third, I urge you to remember the Maginot Line. It was a high-tech wall that French leaders believed would prevent another invasion of their country, as had occurred in World War I. The Maginot Line was highly regarded right up to the time that it failed, catastrophically for France, when the German attackers simply marched around it.

    I view nuclear deterrence theory as a Maginot Line in the mind. It is likely to be relied upon right up until the moment it fails, and when it fails it will be catastrophic, far more so than in the French case. Like the original Maginot Line, it will seem clear after the fact that it was destined to fail.

    What is missing from the discourse on nuclear armaments among national leaders is political will for nuclear weapons abolition, a sense of urgency and the courage to lead. Mr. Obama spoke in his 2013 State of the Union Address about the US “leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands.” The problem with the president’s perspective is that all hands are the wrong hands.

    Who will make this clear to Mr. Obama and to the leaders of the other nuclear weapons states? This is a role for the citizens of the nuclear weapon states and for the leaders of middle-power countries. It is necessary if we are to preserve our world and pass it on intact to new generations.

    Mr. Obama also said that “our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead.” Who will step up and lead on this mostcritical of all issues for humanity’s future?

    Strategies for nuclear weapons, based on nuclear deterrence, have been MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD has given way to SAD (Self-Assured Destruction), as today’s arsenals of thermonuclear weapons have the capacity to trigger Ice Age conditions (leading to nuclear famine) that would assure the destruction of the attacking nation, even without retaliation.

    We must have the courage to move past MAD and SAD to PASS (Planetary Assured Security and Survival). This will require moving rapidly but surely to the total abolition of nuclear weapons, as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    I urge national leaders and security specialists, as well as the public, to base their strategic thinking, leadership and action regarding nuclear weapons on three basic understandings that separate fact from fiction, truth from hypothesis. First, nuclear weapons are capable of omnicide. Second, nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior, not a fact that can be relied upon for the indefinite future. Third, the Maginot Line was fancy and high-tech and was thought to be foolproof by most security experts, but it failed to provide a defense when it mattered, and its failure was devastating for France.

    Nuclear deterrence is a Maginot Line in the mind, and its failure would be devastating, not only to nuclear armed countries, but to people everywhere, as well as to the future of complex life on the planet.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Nuclear Weapons Must Be Eradicated for All Our Sakes

    This article was originally published by The Guardian.

    We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran’s pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.

    Until we overcome this double standard – until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.

    Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?

    Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological and chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as legitimate in the hands of some. This must change.

    Around 130 governments, various UN agencies, the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are gathering in Oslo this week to examine the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons and the inability of relief agencies to provide an effective response in the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates about nuclear arms have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on geopolitics and narrow concepts of national security.

    With enough public pressure, I believe that governments can move beyond the hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral disarmament discussions for decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on negotiations for a treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of terror. Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned on their head almost overnight if there’s the will.

    Let us not forget that it was only a few years ago when those who spoke about green energy and climate change were considered peculiar. Now it is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us. There was once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses. So it will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.

    Indeed, 184 nations have already made a legal undertaking never to obtain nuclear weapons, and three in four support a universal ban. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation to do so. This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to an accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era atomic arsenals.

    But today nine nations still consider it their prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small, whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.

    Desmond Tutu is Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council.

  • Against the Institution of War

    As we start the 21st century and the new millennium, our scientific and technological civilization seems to be entering a period of crisis. Today, for the first time in history, science has given to humans the possibility of a life of comfort, free from hunger and cold, and free from the constant threat of infectious disease. At the same time, science has given us the power to destroy civilization through thermonuclear war, as well as the power to make our planet uninhabitable through pollution and overpopulation. The question of which of these alternatives we choose is a matter of life or death to ourselves and our children.

    Science and technology have shown themselves to be double-edged, capable of doing great good or of producing great harm, depending on the way in which we use the enormous power over nature, which science has given to us. For this reason, ethical thought is needed now more than ever before. The wisdom of the world’s religions, the traditional wisdom of humankind, can help us as we try to insure that our overwhelming material progress will be beneficial rather than disastrous.

    The crisis of civilization, which we face today, has been produced by the rapidity with which science and technology have developed. Our institutions and ideas adjust too slowly to the change. The great challenge which history has given to our generation is the task of building new international political structures, which will be in harmony with modern technology. At the same time, we must develop a new global ethic, which will replace our narrow loyalties by loyalty to humanity as a whole.

    In the long run, because of the enormously destructive weapons, which have been produced through the misuse of science, the survival of civilization can only be insured if we are able to abolish the institution of war.

    While in earlier epochs it may have been possible to confine the effects of war mainly to combatants, in our own century the victims of war have increasingly been civilians, and especially children. For example, according to Quincy Wright’s statistics, the First and Second World Wars together cost the lives of 26 million soldiers, but the toll in civilian lives was much larger: 64 million.

    Since the Second World War, despite the best efforts of the U. N., there have been over 150 armed conflicts; and, if civil wars are included, there are on any given day an average of 12 wars somewhere in the world. In the conflicts in Indo-China, the proportion of civilian victims was between 80 % and  90 % , while in the Lebanese civil war some sources state that the proportion of civilian casualties was as high as 97%.

    Civilian casualties often occur through malnutrition and through diseases, which would be preventable in normal circumstances. Because of the social disruption caused by war, normal supplies of food, safe water and medicine are interrupted, so that populations become vulnerable to famine and epidemics. In the event of a catastrophic nuclear war, starvation and disease would add greatly to the loss of life caused by the direct effects of nuclear weapons.

    The indirect effects of war are also enormous. Globally, preparations for war interfere seriously with the use of tax money for constructive and peaceful purposes. Today, despite the end of the Cold War, the world spends roughly $1.7 trillion (i.e. a million million) US dollars each year on armaments. This enormous flood of money, which is almost too large to imagine, could have been used instead for urgently needed public health measures.

    The World Health Organization lacks funds to carry through an anti-malarial program on as large a scale as would be desirable, but the entire program could be financed for less than the world spends on armaments in a single day. Five hours of world arms spending is equivalent to the total cost of the 20-year WHO campaign, which resulted in the eradication of smallpox. For every 100,000 people in the world, there are 556 soldiers, but only 85 doctors. Every soldier costs an average of 20,000 US dollars per year, while the average spent per year on education is only 380 US dollars per school-aged child. With a diversion of funds consumed by three weeks of military spending, the world could create a sanitary water supply for all its people, thus eliminating the cause of almost half of all human illness.

    A new and drug-resistant form of tuberculosis has recently become widespread, and is increasing rapidly in the former Soviet Union. In order to combat this new form of tuberculosis, and in order to prevent its spread to Western Europe, WHO needs 450 million US dollars, an amount equivalent to 4 hours of world arms spending. By using this money to combat tuberculosis in the former Soviet Union, WHO would be making a far greater contribution to global peace and stability than is made by spending the money on armaments.

    Today’s world is one in which roughly ten million children die each year from diseases related to poverty. Besides this enormous waste of young lives through malnutrition and preventable disease, there is a huge waste of opportunities through inadequate education. The rate of illiteracy in the 25 least developed countries is 80 percent, and the total number of illiterates in the world is estimated to be 800 million. Meanwhile every 60 seconds the world spends roughly 2 million U. S. dollars on armaments.

    It is plain that if the almost unbelievable sums now wasted on armaments were used constructively, most of the pressing problems now facing humanity could be solved, but today the world spends more than 20 times as much per year on weapons as it does on development.

    Because the world spends a thousand billion dollars each year on armaments, it follows that very many people make their living from war. This is the reason why it is correct to speak of war as a social institution, and also the reason why war persists, although everyone realizes that it is the cause of much of the suffering that inflicts humanity. We know that war is madness, but it persists. We know that it threatens the future survival of our species, but it persists, entrenched in the attitudes of historians, newspaper editors and television producers, entrenched in the methods by which politicians finance their campaigns, and entrenched in the financial power of arms manufacturers, entrenched also in the ponderous and costly hardware of war, the fleets of warships, bombers, tanks, nuclear missiles and so on.

    Science cannot claim to be guiltless: In Eisenhower’s farewell address, he warned of the increasing power of the industrial-military complex, a threat to democratic society. If he were making the same speech today, he might speak of the industrial-military-scientific complex. Since Hiroshima, we have known that new knowledge is not always good. There is a grave danger that nuclear weapons will soon proliferate to such an extent that they will be available to terrorists and even to the mafia. Chemical and biological weapons also constitute a grave threat. The eradication of smallpox in 1979 was a triumph of medical science combined with international cooperation. How sad it is to think that military laboratories cultivate smallpox and that the disease may soon be reintroduced as a biological weapon!

    The institution of war seems to be linked to a fault in human nature, to our tendency to exhibit altruism towards members of our own group but aggression towards other groups if we perceive them to be threatening our own community. This tendency, which might be called “tribalism”, was perhaps built into human nature by evolution during the long prehistory of our species, when we lived as hunter-gatherers in small genetically homogeneous tribes, competing for territory on the grasslands of Africa. However, in an era of nerve gas and nuclear weapons, the anachronistic behavior pattern of tribal altruism and intertribal aggression now threatens our survival.

    Fortunately, our behavior is only partly determined by inherited human nature. It is also, and perhaps to a larger extent, determined by education and environment; and in spite of all the difficulties just mentioned, war has been eliminated locally in several large regions of the world. Taking these regions as models, we can attempt to use the same methods to abolish war globally.

    For example, war between the Scandinavian nations would be unthinkable today, although the region once was famous for its violence. Scandinavia is especially interesting as a model for what we would like to achieve globally, because it is a region in which it has been possible not only to eradicate war, but also poverty; and at the same time, death from infectious disease has become a rarity in this region.

    If we consider the problem of simultaneously eliminating poverty, war and frequent death from infectious disease, we are lead inevitably to the problem of population stabilization. At the time when poverty, disease and war characterized Scandinavia, the average fertility in the region was at least 6 children per woman-life. Equilibrium was maintained at this high rate of fertility, because some of the children died from disease without leaving progeny, and because others died in war. Today, poverty and war are gone from the Nordic countries, and the rate of premature death from infectious disease is very low. The simultaneous elimination of poverty, disease and war would have been impossible in Scandinavia if the rate of fertility had not fallen to the replacement level. There would then have been no alternative except for the population to grow, which it could not have continued to do over many centuries without environmental degradation, bringing with it the recurrence of poverty, disease and war.

    In Scandinavia today, democratic government, a high level of education, economic prosperity, public health, high social status for women, legal, economic and educational equality for women, a low birth rate, and friendly cooperation between the nations of the region are mutually linked in loops of cause and effect. By contrast, we can find other regions of the world where low status of women, high birth rates, rapidly increasing population, urban slums, low educational levels, high unemployment levels, poverty, ethnic conflicts and the resurgence of infectious disease are equally linked, but in a vicious circle. The three age-old causes of human suffering, poverty, infectious disease and war are bound together by complex causal relationships involving also the issues of population stabilization and woman’s rights. The example of Scandinavia shows us that it is possible to cure all these diseases of society; but to do so we must address all of the problems simultaneously.

    Abolition of the institution of war will require the construction of structures of international government and law to replace our present anarchy at the global level. Today’s technology has shrunken the distances, which once separated nations; and our present system of absolutely sovereign nation-states has become both obsolete and dangerous.

    Professor Elie Kedourie of the University of London has given the following definition of nationalism: “A doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. It pretends to supply a criterion for the determination of the unit of population proper to enjoy a government exclusively its own, for the legitimate exercise of power in the state, and for the right organization of a society of states. Briefly, the doctrine holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that nations are known by certain characteristics which can be ascertained, and that the only legitimate type of government is national self-government.”

    A basic problem with this doctrine is that throughout most of the world, successive waves of migration, conquest and intermarriage have left such a complicated ethnic mosaic that attempts to base political divisions on ethnic homogeneity often meet with trouble. In Eastern Europe, for example, German-speaking and Slavic-speaking peoples are mixed together so closely that the Pan-German and Pan-Slavic movements inevitably clashed over the question of who should control the regions where the two populations lived side by side. This clash was one of the main causes of the First World War.

    Similarly, when India achieved independence from England, a great problem arose in the regions where Hindus and Moslems lived side by side; and even Gandhi was unable to prevent terrible violence from taking place between the two communities. This problem is still present, and it has been made extremely dangerous by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan.

    More recently, nationalist movements in Asia and Africa have derived their force and popularity from a reaction against the years of European political and economic domination. Thus, at first sight, they seem to deserve our sympathy and support. However, in building states, the new nationalists have often used hate for outsiders as mortar. For example, Israel is held together by hostility towards its Arab neighbors, while the Pan-Arab movement is held together by hostility towards Israel; and in this inflamed political climate of mutual fear and hatred, even clandestine nuclear weapons appear to either side to be justified.

    A basic problem rooted in nationalist mythology exists in the concept of sanctions, which treat nations as if they were individuals. We punish nations as a whole by sanctions, even when only the leaders are guilty, even though the burdens of the sanctions often fall most heavily on the weakest and least guilty of the citizens, and even though sanctions often have the effect of uniting the citizens of a country behind the guilty leaders.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the concept of the absolutely sovereign nation-state is an anachronism in a world of thermonuclear weapons, instantaneous communication, and economic interdependence. Probably our best hope for the future lies in developing the United Nations into a World Federation. The strengthened United Nations should have a legislature with the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, and the ability to arrest and try individual political leaders for violations of these laws. The World Federation should also have the military and legal powers necessary to guarantee the human rights of ethnic minorities within nations.

    A strengthened UN would need a reliable source of income to make the organization less dependent on wealthy countries, which tend to give support only to those interventions of which they approve. A promising solution to this problem is the so-called “Tobin tax”, named after the Nobel-laureate economist James Tobin of Yale University. Tobin proposed that international currency exchanges should be taxed at a rate between 0.1 and 0.25 percent. He believed that even this extremely low rate of taxation would have the effect of damping speculative transactions, thus stabilizing the rates of exchange between currencies. When asked what should be done with the proceeds of the tax, Tobin said, almost as an afterthought, “Let the United Nations have it”. The volume of money involved in international currency transactions is so enormous that even the tiny tax proposed by Tobin would provide the World Federation with between 100 billion and 300 billion dollars annually. By strengthening the activities of various UN agencies, such as WHO, UNESCO and FAO, the additional income would add to the prestige of the United Nations and thus make the organization more effective when it is called upon to resolve international political conflicts.

    A federation is, by definition, a limited union of states, where the federal government has the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, but where the laws are confined to interstate matters, and where all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the several states. In other words, in a federation, each of the member states runs its own internal affairs according to its own laws and customs; but in certain agreed-on matters, where the interests of the states overlap, authority is specifically delegated to the federal government.

    For example, if the nations of the world considered the control of narcotics to be a matter of mutual concern; if they agreed to set up a commission with the power to make laws preventing the growing, refinement and distribution of harmful drugs, and with the power to arrest individuals for violating those laws, then we would have a world federation in the area of narcotics control.

    If, in addition, the world community considered terrorism to be a matter of mutual concern; if an international commission were also set up with the power to make global anti-terrorist laws, and to arrest individuals violating those laws, then we would have a world federation with somewhat broader powers.

    If the community of nations decided to give the federal authority the additional power to make laws defining the rights and obligations of multinational corporations, and the power to arrest individuals violating those laws, then we would have a world federation with still broader powers; but these powers would still be carefully defined and limited.

    In 1998, in Rome, representatives of 120 countries signed a statute establishing a International Criminal Court, with jurisdiction over war crimes and genocide. Four years were to pass before the necessary ratifications were gathered, but by Thursday, April 11, 2002, 66 nations had ratified the Rome agreement, 6 more than the 60 needed to make the court permanent. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is at present limited to a very narrow class crimes. The global community will have a chance to see how the court works in practice, and in the future, the community may decide to broaden its jurisdiction.

    In setting up a federation, the member states can decide which powers they wish to delegate to it; and all powers not expressly delegated are retained by the individual states. We are faced with the problem of constructing a new world order which will preserve the advantages of local self-government while granting certain carefully-chosen powers to larger regional or global authorities. Which things should be decided locally, or regionally, and which globally?

    In the future, overpopulation and famine are likely to become increasingly difficult and painful problems in several parts of the world. Since various cultures take widely different attitudes towards birth control and family size, the problem of population stabilization seems to be one which should be solved locally. At the same time, aid for local family planning programs, as well as famine relief, might appropriately come from global agencies, such as WHO and FAO. With respect to large-scale migration, it would be unfair for a country which has successfully stabilized its own population, and which has eliminated poverty within its own borders, to be forced to accept a flood of migrants from regions of high fertility. Therefore the extent of immigration should be among the issues to be decided locally.

    Security, and controls on the manufacture and export of armaments will require an effective authority at the global level. It should also be the responsibility of the international community to intervene to prevent gross violations of human rights. Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has more and more frequently been called upon to send armed forces to troubled parts of the world. In many instances, these calls for U. N. intervention have been prompted by clear and atrocious violations of human rights, for example by “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and by genocide in Rwanda. In the examples just named, the response of the United Nations would have been much more effective, and many lives would have been saved, if the action which was finally taken had come sooner. Long and complex diplomatic negotiations were required to muster the necessary political and physical forces needed for intervention, by which time the original problems had become much more severe. For this reason, it has been suggested that the U. N. Secretary General, the Security Council and the General Assembly ought to have at their disposal a permanent, highly trained and highly mobile emergency force, composed of volunteers from all nations. Such an international police force would be able to act rapidly to prevent gross violations of human rights or other severe breaches of international law.

    In evaluating the concept of an international police force directly responsible to the United Nations, it is helpful to examine the way in which police act to enforce laws and to prevent violence and crime at local and national levels.

    Within a community which is characterized by good government, police are not highly armed, nor are they very numerous. Law and order are not maintained primarily by the threat of force, but by the opinion of the vast majority of the citizens that the system of laws is both just and necessary. Traffic stops when the signal light is red and moves when it is green whether or not a policeman is present, because everyone understands why such a system is necessary.

    Nevertheless, although the vast majority of the citizens in a well-governed community support the system of laws and would never wish to break the law, we all know that the real world is not heaven. The total spectrum of human nature includes evil as well as a good. If there were no police at all, and if the criminal minority were completely unchecked, every citizen would be obliged to be armed. No one’s life or property would be safe. Robbery, murder and rape would flourish.

    Within a society with a democratic and just government, whose powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a small and lightly armed force of police is able to maintain the system of laws. One reason why this is possible has just been mentioned – the force of public opinion. A second reason is that the law acts on individuals. Since obstruction of justice and the murder of policemen both rank as serious crimes, an individual criminal is usually not able to organize massive resistance against police action.

    Edith Wynner, one of the pioneers of the World Federalist movement, lists the following characteristics of police power in a well-governed society:

    1. “A policeman operates within a framework of organized government having legislative, executive and judicial authority operating on individuals. His actions are guided by a clearly stated criminal code that has the legislative sanction of the community. Should he abuse the authority vested in him, he is subject to discipline and court restraint.”
    2. “A policeman seeing a fight between two men does not attempt to determine which of them is in the right and then help him beat up the one he considers wrong. His function is to restrain violence by both, to bring them before a judge who has authority to determine the rights of the dispute, and to see that the court’s decision is carried out.”
    3. “In carrying out his duties, the policeman must apprehend the suspected individual without jeopardizing either the property or the lives of the community where the suspect is to be arrested. And not only is the community safeguarded against destruction of property and loss of life but the rights of the suspect are also carefully protected by an elaborate network of judicial safeguards.”

    Edith Wynner also discusses the original union of the thirteen American colonies, which was a confederation, analogous to the present United Nations. This confederation was found to be too weak, and after eleven years it was replaced by a federation, one of whose key powers was the power to make and enforce laws which acted on individuals. George Mason, one of the architects of the federal constitution of the United States, believed that “such a government was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it”, while James Madison (another drafter of the U. S. federal constitution) remarked that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted “the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively, and not individually”. Finally, Alexander Hamilton, in his “Federalist Papers”, discussed the confederation with the following words: “To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised… Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government, which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself – a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be enough to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government… What is the cure for this great evil? Nothing, but to enable the… laws to operate on individuals, in the same manner as those of states do.”

    The United Nations is at present a confederation rather than a federation, and thus it acts by attempting to coerce states, a procedure which Alexander Hamilton characterized as “one of the maddest projects that was ever devised”. Whether this coercion takes the form of economic sanctions, or whether it takes the form of military intervention, the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of the UN’s efforts are hampered because they are applied to people collectively and not individually. It is obvious that the United Nations actions to stop aggression of one state against another in the Korean War and in the Gulf War fail to match the three criteria for police action listed above. What is the cure for this great evil? “Nothing”, Hamilton tells us, “but to enable the laws to act on individuals, in the same manner as those of states do.”

    Historically, confederations have always proved to be too weak; but federations have on the whole been very successful, mainly because a federation has the power to make laws which act on individuals. At the same time, a federation aims at leaving as many powers as possible in the hands of local authorities. Recent examples of federations include the United States of America, the United States of Brazil, the United States of Mexico, the United States of Venezuela, the Argentine Nation, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of Canada, the Union of South Africa, Switzerland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the European Federation. Thus we are rich in historical data on the strengths and weaknesses of federations, and we can make use of this data as we attempt to construct good government at the global level.

    Looking towards the future, we can perhaps foresee a time when the United Nations will have been converted to a federation and given the power to make international laws which are binding on individuals. Under such circumstances, true international law enforcement will be possible, incorporating all of the needed safeguards for lives and property of the innocent. One can hope for a future world where the institution of war will be abolished, and where public opinion will support international law to such an extent that a new Hitler or a future Milosevic will not be able to organize large-scale resistance to arrest, a world where international law will be seen by all to be just, impartial and necessary, a well-governed global community within which each person will owe his or her ultimate loyalty to humanity as a whole.

    Besides a humane, democratic and just framework of international law and governance, we urgently need a new global ethic, – an ethic where loyalty to family, community and nation will be supplemented by a strong sense of the brotherhood of all humans, regardless of race, religion or nationality. Schiller expressed this feeling in his “Ode to Joy”, the text of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. Hearing Beethoven’s music and Schiller’s words, most of us experience an emotion of resonance and unity with its message: All humans are brothers and sisters – not just some – all! It is almost a national anthem of humanity. The feelings which the music and words provoke are similar to patriotism, but broader. It is this sense of a universal human family, which we need to cultivate in education, in the mass media, and in religion.

    Educational reforms are urgently needed, particularly in the teaching of history. As it is taught today, history is a chronicle of power struggles and war, told from a biased national standpoint. Our own race or religion is superior; our own country is always heroic and in the right.

    We urgently need to replace this indoctrination in chauvinism by a reformed view of history, where the slow development of human culture is described, giving adequate credit to all those who have contributed. Our modern civilization is built on the achievements of ancient cultures. China, India, Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, Greece, the Islamic world, Christian Europe, and Jewish intellectual traditions all have contributed. Potatoes, corn and squash are gifts from the American Indians. Human culture, gradually built up over thousands of years by the patient work of millions of hands and minds, should be presented to students of history as a precious heritage – far too precious to be risked in a thermonuclear war.

    In the teaching of science too, reforms are needed. Graduates in science and technology should be conscious of their responsibilities. They must resolve never to use their education in the service of war, or in any way which might be harmful to society or to the environment.

    In modern societies, mass media play an extremely important role in determining behavior and attitudes. This role can be a negative one when the media show violence and enemy images, but if used constructively, the mass media can offer a powerful means for creating international understanding. If it is indeed true that tribalism is part of human nature, it is extremely important that the mass media be used to the utmost to overcome the barriers between nations and cultures. Through increased communication, the world’s peoples can learn to accept each other as members of a single family.

    Finally, let us turn to religion, with its enormous influence on human thought and behavior. Christianity, for example, offers a strongly stated ethic, which, if practiced, would make war impossible. In Mathew, the following passage occurs:

    “Ye have heard it said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say unto you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that spitefully use you and persecute you.”

    This seemingly impractical advice, that we should love our enemies, is in fact of the greatest practicality, since acts of unilateral kindness and generosity can stop escalatory cycles of revenge and counter-revenge such as those which characterize the present conflict in the Middle East and the recent troubles of Northern Ireland. However, Christian nations, while claiming to adhere to the ethic of love and forgiveness, have adopted a policy of “massive retaliation”, involving systems of thermonuclear missiles whose purpose is to destroy as much as possible of the country at which the retaliation is aimed. It is planned that entire populations shall be killed in a “massive retaliation”, innocent children along with the guilty politicians. The startling contradiction between what the Christian nations profess and what they do was obvious even before the advent of nuclear weapons, at the time when Leo Tolstoy, during his last years, was exchanging letters with a young Indian lawyer in South Africa. In one of his letters to Gandhi, Tolstoy wrote:

    “The whole life of the Christian peoples is a continuous contradiction between that which they profess and the principles on which they order their lives, a contradiction between love accepted as the law of life, and violence, which is recognized and praised, acknowledged even as a necessity.”

    “This year, in the spring, at a Scripture examination at a girls’ high school in Moscow, the teacher and the bishop present asked the girls questions on the Commandments, and especially on the sixth. After a correct answer, the bishop generally put another question, whether murder was always in all cases forbidden by God’s law; and the unhappy young ladies were forced by previous instruction to answer ‘Not always’ – that murder was permitted in war and in the execution of criminals. Still, when one of these unfortunate young ladies (what I am telling is not an invention but a fact told to me by an eye witness) after her first answer, was asked the usual question, if killing was always sinful, she, agitated and blushing, decisively answered ‘Always’, and to the usual sophisms of the bishop, she answered with decided conviction that killing was always forbidden in the Old Testament and forbidden by Christ, not only killing but every wrong against a brother. Notwithstanding all his grandeur and arts of speech, the bishop became silent and the girl remained victorious.”

    As everyone knows, Gandhi successfully applied the principle of non-violence to the civil rights struggle in South Africa, and later to the political movement, which gave India its freedom and independence. The principle of non-violence was also successfully applied by Martin Luther King, and by Nelson Mandela. It is perhaps worthwhile to consider Gandhi’s comment on the question of whether the end justifies the means: “The means may be likened to a seed”, Gandhi wrote, “and the end to a tree; and there is the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.” In other words, a dirty method produces a dirty result; killing produces more killing; hate leads to more hate. Everyone who reads the newspapers knows that this is true. But there are positive feedback loops as well as negative ones. A kind act produces a kind response; a generous gesture is returned; hospitality results in reflected hospitality. Buddhists call this principle of reciprocity “the law of karma”.

    The religious leaders of the world have the opportunity to contribute importantly to the solution of the problem of war. They have the opportunity to powerfully support the concept of universal human brotherhood, to build bridges between religious groups, to make intermarriage across ethnic boundaries easier, and to soften the distinctions between communities. If they fail to do this, they will have failed humankind at a time of crisis.

    It is useful to consider the analogy between the institution of war and the institution of slavery. We might be tempted to say, “There has always been war, throughout human history; and war will always continue to exist.” As an antidote for this kind of pessimism, we can think of slavery, which, like war, has existed throughout most of recorded history. The cultures of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome were all based on slavery, and, in more recent times, 13 million Africans were captured and forced into a life of slavery in the New World. Slavery was as much an accepted and established institution as war is today. Many people made large profits from slavery, just as arms manufacturers today make enormous profits. Nevertheless, in spite of the weight of vested interests, slavery has now been abolished throughout most of the world.

    Today we look with horror at drawings of slave ships, where human beings were packed together like cord-wood; and we are amazed that such cruelty could have been possible. Can we not hope for a time when our descendants, reading descriptions of the wars of the twentieth century, will be equally amazed that such cruelty could have been possible? If we use them constructively, the vast resources now wasted on war can initiate a new era of happiness and prosperity for the family of man. It is within our power to let this happen. The example of the men and women who worked to rid the world of slavery can give us courage as we strive for a time when war will exist only as a dark memory fading into the past.

    1. Q. Wright, “A Study of War”, Chicago University Press, (1965).
    2. M. Kahnert et al., editors, “Children and War”, Peace Union of Finland, (1983).
    3. N.A. Guenther, “Children and the Threat of Nuclear War: An Annotated Bibliography”, Compubibs, New York, New York, (1985).
    4. D.V. Babst et al, “Accidental Nuclear War: The Growing Peril”, Dundas, Ontario, Peace Research Institute, (1984).
    5. J. Schear, editor, “Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Nuclear Risk”, Gower, London, (1984).
    6. E. Chivian et al., editors, (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), “Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions of Nuclear War”, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1982).
    7. H. Mahler, “World Health is Indivisible”, World Health Organization, Geneva, (1978).
    8. E. Kamenka, editor, “Nationalism”, Edward Arnold, London, (1976).
    9. Elie Kedourie, “Nationalism in Asia and Africa”, Frank Cass and Company Ltd., London, (1970).
    10. S. Freud, “Warum Krieg? Das Bild vom Feind”, Arbeitsgem. Friedenspedagogik, (1983).
    11. R.A. Levine and D.T. Campbell, “Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior”, Wiley, New York, (1972).
    12. R.A. Hinde, “Biological Basis of Human Social Behavior”, McGraw-Hill, (1977).
    13. R.A. Hinde, “Towards Understanding Human Relationships”, Academic Press, London, (1979).
    14. C. Zahn-Waxler, “Altruism and Aggression: Biological and Social Origins”, Cambridge University Press, (1986).
    15. R. Axelrod, “The Evolution of Cooperation”, Basic Books, New York, (1984).
    16. Arthur Koestler, “The Urge to Self-Destruction”, in “The Place of Values in a World of Facts”, A. Tiselius and S. Nielsson editors, Wiley, New York, (1970).
    17. Edith Wynner,”World Federal Government in Maximum Terms: Proposals for United Nations Charter Revision”, Fedonat Press, Afton New York, (1954).

    John Avery is a leader in the Pugwash movement in Denmark.

  • What Is Ethical?

    This article was originally published by Pressenza.

    During the lunch hour on the final day of the ICAN Civil Society Forum in Oslo, around 150 people attended a panel discussion on “Ethics in International Politics.”

    At the end of the panel discussion, Fr. John Dear briefly brought up an important example that shocked many in the audience. He said that many of the employees of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), near where he lives in New Mexico, believe that they are engaged in an ethical – perhaps the most ethical – line of work.

    The definition of “ethics” through which I view the issue of nuclear weapons is this:

    That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

    How can LANL employees possibly believe their work is ethical? Each nuclear weapon that LANL employees have created, monitored and modernized from the dawn of the Nuclear Age until today have the capacity to destroy hundreds of thousands – or more – lives in a flash. The resulting nuclear famine from even a relatively small regional exchange of nuclear weapons would kill hundreds of millions more people around the world.

    The answer to this question lies in their belief in nuclear deterrence – that the threat of massive retaliation by Country B prevents Country A from initiating hostilities. Therefore, nuclear weapons keep the peace and will never be used.

    As a signatory to the Santa Barbara Declaration against nuclear deterrence, I do not believe that this idea about human behavior holds in all cases or can be relied on to keep us safe. A conscious effort must be made by nuclear weapons proponents to ignore the well-documented catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in order to consider nuclear weapons “ethical.”

    At the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, NAPF President David Krieger asked U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher whether the U.S. would be willing to conduct a “human impact statement” on the use of nuclear weapons. Ms. Tauscher’s answer was simple: “We have no intention of doing this.”

    This willful ignorance continues today: the P5 (U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China) made a collective decision to avoid the Norwegian Foreign Ministry’s conference on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, which begins on March 4. To participate in it would shatter their carefully-crafted illusion that the “motive” and the “end” of maintaining even one nuclear weapon is ethical.

    At least 132 countries will come together in Oslo on March 4-5 to examine the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons. The scientific evidence is beyond doubt. No one could hide from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should a nuclear exchange take place.

    The P5 cannot hide forever from the fact that humanity demands the abolition of nuclear weapons. A Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, transparent and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide is the only ethical option.

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs & Operations at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.