This article was originally published by Common Wonders.
Suddenly it’s possible — indeed, all too easy — to imagine one man starting a nuclear war. What’s a little harder to imagine is one human being stopping such a war.
For all time.
The person who came closest to this may have been Tony de Brum, former foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, who died last week of cancer at age 72.
He grew up in the South Pacific island chain when it was under “administrative control” of the U.S. government, which meant it was a waste zone absolutely without political or social significance (from the American point of view), and therefore a perfect spot to test nuclear weapons. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States conducted 67 such tests — the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima blasts every day for 12 years — and for much of the time thereafter ignored and/or lied about the consequences.
As a boy, de Brum was unavoidably a witness to some of these tests, including the one known as Castle Bravo, a 15-megaton blast conducted on Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954. He and his family lived about 200 miles away, on Likiep Atoll. He was nine years old.
He later described it thus: “No sound, just a flash and then a force, the shock wave . . . as if you were under a glass bowl and someone poured blood over it. Everything turned red: sky, the ocean, the fish, my grandfather’s net.
“People in Rongelap nowadays claim they saw the sun rising from the West. I saw the sun rising from the middle of the sky. . . . We lived in thatch houses at that time, my grandfather and I had our own thatch house and every gecko and animal that lived in the thatch fell dead not more than a couple of days after. The military came in, sent boats ashore to run us through Geiger counters and other stuff; everybody in the village was required to go through that.”
The Rongelap Atoll was inundated with radioactive fallout from Castle Bravo and rendered uninhabitable. “The Marshall Islands’ close encounter with the bomb did not end with the detonations themselves,” de Brum said more than half a century later, in his 2012 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award acceptance speech. “In recent years, documents released by the United States government have uncovered even more horrific aspects of this burden borne by the Marshallese people in the name of international peace and security.”
These included the natives’ deliberately premature resettlement on contaminated islands and the cold-blooded observation of their reaction to nuclear radiation, not to mention U.S. denial and avoidance, for as long as possible, of any responsibility for what it did.
In 2014, Foreign Minister de Brum was the driving force behind something extraordinary. The Marshall Islands, which had gained independence in 1986, filed a lawsuit, both in in the International Court of Justice and U.S. federal court, against the nine nations that possess nuclear weapons, demanding that they start living up to the terms of Article VI of the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which includes these words:
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
Right now, Planet Earth could not be more divided on this matter. Some of the world’s nine nuclear powers, including the United States, have signed this treaty, and others have not, or have withdrawn from it (e.g., North Korea), but none of them has the slightest interest in recognizing it or pursuing nuclear disarmament. For instance, all of them, plus their allies, boycotted a recent U.N. debate that led to the passage of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which calls for immediate nuclear disarmament. One hundred twenty-two nations — most of the world — voted for it. But the nuke nations couldn’t even endure the discussion.
This is the world de Brum and the Marshall Islands stood up to in 2014 — aligned with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an NGO that provided legal help to pursue the lawsuit, but otherwise alone in the world, without international support.
“Absent the courage of Tony, the lawsuits would not have happened,” David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told me. “Tony was unequaled in being willing to challenge nuclear weapon states for their failure to fulfill their legal obligations.”
And no, the lawsuits didn’t succeed. They were dismissed, eventually, on something other than their actual merits. The U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals, for instance, eventually declared that Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was “non-self-executing and therefore not judicially enforceable,” which sounds like legal jargon for: “Sorry, folks, as far as we know, nukes are above the law.”
But as Krieger noted, referring to the recent U.N. vote calling for nuclear disarmament, de Brum’s unprecedented audacity — pushing the U.S. and international court systems to hold the nuclear-armed nations of the world accountable — may have served as “a role model for courage. There might have been other countries in the U.N. who saw the courage he exhibited and decided it was time to stand up.”
We do not yet have nuclear disarmament, but because of Tony de Brum, an international movement for this is gaining political traction.
Perhaps he stands as a symbol of the anti-Trump: a sane and courageous human being who has seen the sky turn red and felt the shockwaves of Armageddon, and who has spent a lifetime trying to force the world’s most powerful nations to reverse the course of mutually assured destruction.
MARSHALL ISLANDS’ NUCLEAR ZERO LAWSUIT APPEAL DISMISSED IN NINTH CIRCUIT COURT
San Francisco–The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled to affirm the U.S. Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Nuclear Zero lawsuit, brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI).
The lawsuit sought a declaration that the United States was in breach of its treaty obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and international law, and asked the court to order that the United States engage in good-faith negotiations.
The suit also contended that the United States clearly violated its legal obligations to pursue nuclear disarmament by spending large sums of money to enhance its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. plans to spend an estimated $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next three decades. President Trump has said he wants to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the “top of the pack,” saying the United States has “fallen behind in its nuclear weapons capacity.”
The case was initially dismissed on February 3, 2015 on the jurisdictional grounds of standing and political question doctrine without getting to the merits of the case. Oral arguments were then heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 15, 2017.
The ruling today from the court held that Article VI was non-self-executing and therefore not judicially enforceable. The panel also found that the Marshall Islands’ claims presented inextricable political questions that were nonjusticiable and must be dismissed.
Laurie Ashton, lead attorney representing the Marshall Islands commented, “Today’s decision is very disappointing. But it is also more than that, because it undercuts the validity of the NPT. There has never been a more critical time to enforce the legal obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament. While the Ninth Circuit decision focuses on its inability to judicially determine the parameters of such negotiations, which are at the discretion of the Executive, with respect, the Court failed to acknowledge the pleading of the RMI, supported by the declarations of experts, that such negotiations have never taken place. At issue was whether Article VI requires the US to at least attend such negotiations, or whether it may continue to boycott them, as it did with the Nuclear Ban Treaty negotiations. To that we have no answer.”
Marshall Islanders suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages to their people and homeland when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests on their territory between 1946 and 1958. These tests had the equivalent power of exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years.
The Marshall Islands did not seek compensation with this lawsuit. Rather, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the United States to comply with its commitments under the NPT and international law.
Rick Wayman, Director of Programs for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and a consultant to the Marshall Islands in their lawsuit, stated, “This ruling from the Ninth Circuit continues the trend of a complete lack of accountability on the part of the U.S. government for its nuclear proliferation, active participation in a nuclear arms race, and refusal to participate in nuclear disarmament negotiations.”
Wayman continued, “The Marshall Islanders made a valiant and selfless effort to bring the U.S. into compliance with its existing legal obligations. I deeply appreciate the RMI’s courageous leadership on today’s most pressing existential threat. Together with willing non-nuclear countries and non-governmental organizations around the world, we will continue to work until the scourge of nuclear weapons is eliminated from the earth.”
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in1982. Its mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of some 80,000 individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.
San Francisco–On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:00 AM, the appeal of the dismissal of the Republic of the Marshall Islands’ case in the U.S. Federal District Court will be heard in the Ninth District Court of Appeals. The case, initially filed on April 24, 2014, alleges that the United States failed to uphold its legal obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary International law to begin negotiations “in good faith” for an end to the nuclear arms race “at an early date” and for nuclear disarmament.
The suit contends that the United States has clearly violated its legal obligations to pursue nuclear disarmament by spending large sums of money to enhance its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. plans to spend an estimated $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next three decades and President Trump has said he wants to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the “top of the pack,” saying the United States has “fallen behind in its nuclear weapons capacity.”
The case was dismissed on February 3, 2015 on the jurisdictional grounds of standing and political question doctrine without getting to the merits of the case. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a consultant to the Marshall Islands in their lawsuit, stated, “We believe the Court of Appeals should reverse the decision of the lower court and allow the case to be heard on its merits. But, no matter the outcome of this appeal, the Marshall Islands has shown great leadership with their Nuclear Zero lawsuits. They are a small nation that has acted on behalf of all humanity.”
Marshall Islanders suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages to their people and homeland when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests on their territory between 1946 and 1958. These tests had the equivalent power of exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years.
The Marshall Islands does not seek compensation with this lawsuit. Rather, it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the United States to comply with its commitments under international law.
Note to editor: There will be a press conference outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at approximately 12:00 PM. Laurie Ashton, lead council for the Marshall Islands; Pastor Julian Riklon of the Marshall Islands; Rick Wayman, Director of Programs and Operations at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation; Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs; and John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, will be available for comment.
# # #
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in1982. Its mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.
The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of some 80,000 individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.
Her Excellency Hilda C. Heine, Ed.D., President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, delivered this speech on March 1, 2017 at the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day event.
[This document reflects the discussions at the symposium “The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse,” held in Santa Barbara, California, on October 24-25, 2016, and also takes into account the changed political landscape in the U.S. following the election of Donald Trump, which occurred two weeks after the symposium. The symposium was sponsored and organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.]
Humanity and the planet face two existential threats: environmental catastrophe and nuclear annihilation. While climate change is the subject of increasing public awareness and concern, the same cannot be said about growing nuclear dangers arising from worsening international circumstances. It’s time again to sound the alarm and mobilize public opinion on a massive scale. Our lives may depend on it.
More than a quarter of a century since the end of the Cold War, some 14,900 nuclear weapons, most an order of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, 93% held by the U.S. and Russia, continue to pose an intolerable and increasing threat to humanity and the biosphere. Recent studies by atmospheric scientists show that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan involving 100 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs dropped on cities could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A drop in average surface temperatures, depletion of the ozone layer, and shortened agricultural growing seasons would lead to massive famine and starvation resulting in as many as two billion deaths over the following decade. A full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would result in a “Nuclear Winter,” triggering a new Ice Age and ending most complex life on the planet.
The danger of wars among nuclear-armed states is growing. There is hope that such wars can be avoided, but that hope, while the essential basis of action, is not sufficient to end the nuclear threat facing humanity and complex life on this planet. Hope must give rise to action.
The United States is poised to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years to modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads, the submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them, and the infrastructure to sustain the nuclear enterprise indefinitely. The other nuclear-armed countries – Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – are modernizing their nuclear arsenals as well.
RISING TENSIONS
Tensions between the United States/NATO and Russia have risen to levels not seen since the Cold War, with the two nuclear giants confronting each other in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Syria, and an accelerated tempo of military exercises and war games, both conventional and nuclear, on both sides.
The U.S., the only nation with nuclear weapons deployed on foreign soil, is estimated to have 180 nuclear weapons stationed at six NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. In June 2016, the largest NATO war games in decades were conducted in Poland. The exercises came weeks after activating a U.S. missile defense system in Romania and ground breaking for another missile defense system in Poland. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that there would be “action in response to guarantee our security.”
In October 2016, Russia moved nuclear-capable Iskander missiles into the Kaliningrad territory bordering Poland and Lithuania, signaling its response to NATO, while claiming it was a routine exercise. Russian officials have previously described the role that the 500 km-range Iskander system would play in targeting U.S. missile defense installations in Poland.
In mid-December 2016, the Obama administration announced plans to deploy troops in Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. According to the U.S. Commander, this would send “the very powerful signal” that “the United States, along with the rest of NATO, is committed to deterrence.”
In Syria, with perhaps the most complex war in history raging, the U.S., Russia and France are bombing side-by-side and sometimes on opposing sides.
Adding to the conflicts among nuclear-armed states, the U.S., with its “pivot” to the Pacific, is facing off against China in seas where other Asian nations are contesting Chinese territorial claims. India and Pakistan remain locked in a nuclear arms race amid mounting diplomatic tensions, border clashes and rising military budgets. And North Korea, refusing to heed strong international condemnation, continues to conduct nuclear weapons tests. It has even announced an intention to test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States.
These potential nuclear flashpoints are ripe for escalation. An accidental or intentional military incident could send the world spiraling into a disastrous nuclear confrontation. A great danger is that the rulers of one nuclear-armed state will miscalculate the interests and fears of another, pushing some geopolitical gambit to the point where economic pressures, covert actions, low-intensity warfare and displays of high-tech force escalate into regional or general war. This vulnerability to unintended consequences is reminiscent of the circumstances that led to World War I, but made more dangerous by U.S. and Russian policies of nuclear first-use, keeping nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, and launch-on-warning.
THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
During the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s nuclear weapons rhetoric was cavalier, suggesting deep ignorance. No one knows what he’ll do in office, but U.S. national security policy has been remarkably consistent in the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras, despite dramatically changed geopolitical conditions and very different presidential styles. The threatened use of nuclear weapons as the “cornerstone” of U.S. national security policy has been reaffirmed by every President, Republican or Democrat, since 1945, when President Harry Truman, a Democrat, oversaw the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to the Trump transition website: “Mr. Trump will ensure our strategic nuclear triad is modernized to ensure it continues to be an effective deterrent….” This is essentially a continuation of the Obama administration’s policy. Trump’s ominous December 22, 2016 tweet – “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilityuntil such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes” – seemed to indicate an intention to increase the level of reliance on the nuclear threat.
While Trump’s conciliatory tone towards Russia offers a glimmer of hope for lowering tensions between the two nuclear-armed giants, the firestorm raging around U.S. government assertions that Russia manipulated the U.S. election to help Trump win has immeasurably compounded the difficulties in predicting what will happen next. Trump’s stated aim to tear up the Iran nuclear deal reveals his deficient understanding of international relations, indicating a lack of awareness that this is a multilateral agreement involving all five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, and that Russia and Iran are engaged in cooperative military operations, including against ISIS. Trump’s belligerent attitude toward China, a strategic ally of Russia, and his threat to upend the decades-long U.S. “one China” policy, is another cause for serious concern.
In his farewell address to the nation in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” An earlier version of his warning referred to the “military-industrial-congressional complex.”
We now face the likelihood of a far more military-industrial Presidential cabinet. The specter of a Trump presidency with a right-wing Republican House and Senate, as well as a compliant Supreme Court, is chilling to an unprecedented degree. Trump’s appointments and nominations of reactionary, hardliner ex-generals, billionaire heads of corporations, and climate-change deniers are cause for grave concern in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas.
The Cold War concept of “strategic stability” among great powers, although itself never an adequate basis for genuine international security, is foundering. The Cold War and post-Cold War managerial approach to arms control must be challenged. Addressing nuclear dangers must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human well-being.
GROWING CRISES
In 2009, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev warned, “Military superiority would be an insurmountable obstacle to ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Unless we discuss demilitarization of international politics, the reduction of military budgets, preventing militarization of outer space, talking about a nuclear-free world will be just rhetorical.”
Nuclear arms control has ground to a halt and the world is backsliding. The growing crises among nuclear-armed states must be defused and disarmament efforts put back on track. Nothing is more important now than to counter the notion that collaborative security with Russia is to be regarded as treasonous or somehow more dangerous than confrontational geopolitics. Peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. Starting with the U.S. and Russia, the nuclear-armed states must sit down at the negotiating table and begin to address Gorbachev’s agenda.
It is essential at this time to assert the credibility and the necessity of a transformational approach to nuclear disarmament. We should do our utmost to marshal public discourse to counter the militarization of governments’ imaginations. The use of military force should always be the last option, not just in rhetoric, but in diplomatic practice.
There has never been a greater need for imaginative diplomacy. The cycle of provocation and response must be halted. Nuclear threats must cease. Nuclear weapons modernization programs must be terminated. Military exercises and war games must be curtailed and conducted with great sensitivity to geopolitical conditions. The U.S. should withdraw its nuclear weapons from NATO bases and, at a minimum, stop NATO expansion and provocative deployments. Policies of nuclear first-use, hair-trigger alert, and launch-on-warning must be ended.
In the longer term, military alliances should be dismantled and replaced by a new collective security paradigm. All nations, first and foremost the U.S., by far the largest weapons exporter, should stop the sale and supply of arms to conflict regions.
CHANGING THE DISCOURSE
Changing the discourse involves both language and processes. We need to take seriously our human role as stewards of the earth and talk about nuclear dangers in terms of potential omnicide. Nuclear weapons are incompatible with democracy. They place vast unaccountable power in a few leaders’ hands, unchecked by the millions of voices that true democracy depends on. We must reject notions of U.S. exceptionalism that exempt this country from respect for the rule of law and the authority of the United Nations. Further, we must revitalize the U.S. Constitution by reintroducing checks and balances into decision-making about war and peace.
Indeed, much of the world does seem to be coming to its senses regarding nuclear weapons. Deeply frustrated by the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, in December 2016 the United Nations General Assembly voted by a large majority to hold negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, leading to their elimination. The vote represents an historic global repudiation of the nuclear weapons status quo among the vast majority of non-nuclear weapons states. None of the nine nuclear-armed nations supported the resolution, and it is unlikely that any nuclear-armed states will participate in the negotiations.
To realize the full value of a “ban” treaty, we must demand that the nuclear-armed states recognize the existing illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law protecting civilians and the environment from the effects of warfare. The governments of these states must finally act to meet their disarmament obligations under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, and participate in good faith in the negotiations as unanimously mandated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion.
The media have narrowed the boundaries of debate, and the public has virtually no feasible means to engage decision-makers on disarmament imperatives. Yet the need for such discourse has never been more urgent. We reject the apocalyptic narrative and summon the imaginations of people everywhere to envision a vastly different future. There is no inevitability to the course of history, and a mobilized citizenry can redirect it toward a positive future.
AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE
There exists an ethical imperative to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The survival of the human species and other forms of complex life requires acting upon this imperative. We will need to successfully reach out to constituencies and organizations outside the peace and disarmament sphere to inspire and engage millions, if not tens of millions, of people. Education and engagement of both media and youth will be critical for success. Hope must be joined with action if we are to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. The alarm is sounding.
*Initial endorsers of this statement include: Rich Appelbaum, Jackie Cabasso, Paul K. Chappell, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Falk, Mark Hamilton, Kimiaki Kawai, David Krieger, Peter Kuznick, Robert Laney, Judith Lipton, Elaine Scarry, Jennifer Simons, Daniel U. Smith, Steven Starr, and Rick Wayman. A full list of symposium participants, along with videos, audio and transcripts of presentations, are available at www.wagingpeace.org/symposium-fierce-urgency. The Spanish version of this statement is here.
From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.
January 9, 2017 (Washington, D.C.)—The Republic of the Marshall Islands and its former Foreign Minister, Tony de Brum, were just awarded the “2016 Arms Control Person of the Year.” Over 1,850 individuals from 63 countries participated in the selection.
Ten individuals and groups were nominated by the staff of the Arms Control Association for their leadership in advancing effective arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament solutions or for raising awareness of the threats posed by mass casualty weapons during the past year.
The government of the Marshall Islands and Ambassador de Brum were nominated for pursuing a legal case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague against the world’s nuclear-armed nations for their failure to initiate nuclear disarmament negotiations in violation of Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.
“The nomination of the Marshall Islands and Ambassador de Brum and the many votes they received reflects the concern and frustration expressed by many non-nuclear weapon states about the unacceptable consequences of nuclear weapons use, the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, and the growing risks of renewed global nuclear competition,” noted Kingston Reif, director of disarmament and threat reduction at the Arms Control Association.
The people of the Marshall Islands were subjected to 67 U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions from 1946 to 1958. The largest of these tests was 1,000 times stronger than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and resulted in immeasurable suffering and emotional and physical trauma to the islanders. Tony de Brum, just nine years old at the time of the testing, said: “After seeing what mere testing of these terrible weapons of mass destruction can do to human beings, it makes sense for the Marshallese people to have implored the nuclear weapon states to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world.”
In October, the 16-member court issued their rulings which upheld the arguments of the nuclear states that the Court lacked jurisdiction in two 9-7 votes in the cases of India and Pakistan and in an 8-8 vote in the case of the UK. India, Pakistan, and the UK were the only states to participate
in the lawsuits because the other nuclear-armed states do not recognize the court’s compulsory jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between states. Despite the court decisions, the cases brought the frustratingly slow pace of disarmament negotiations to the world’s attention.
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands in their lawsuits, commented: “We are proud and excited that Tony de Brum and the government of the Marshall Islands have received this important recognition for their courageous actions. They have demonstrated that when it comes to international security, small countries can make a big difference.” He continued, “I’ve known Tony de Brum for nearly fifty years and he has been persevering in the pursuit of peace and planetary well-being. He has been a passionate advocate for his people and the people of the world. He and the government of the Marshall Islands are most deserving of this award.”
The runner-up in the vote for the 2016 Arms Control Persons of the Year were the foreign ministers of Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa. They had jointly secured adoption of UN Security Council resolution L.41 “to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”
The second runner up was former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry for his continuing efforts to draw attention to the risk of renewed nuclear weapons competition and calling for restraint. Secretary Perry launched in 2016 a new online course on nuclear weapons and authored a new book, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. A list of all 2016 nominees is available at https://armscontrol.org/acpoy/2016
If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, please contact Sandy Jones at sjones@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.
Founded in 1982, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.
The Marshall Islands and Ambassador de Brum were nominated for pursuing a formal legal case against the world’s nuclear-armed states for failing to meet their obligations under the NPT.
THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NUCLEAR ZERO: CHANGING THE DISCOURSE
A SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW By David Krieger
From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) hosted a symposium on October 24-25, 2016 on “The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse.” The symposium participants, long-time experts on nuclear dangers, included Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Falk. For a complete list of participants, click here. Participants voiced concerns that nuclear dangers are increasing in many parts of the world, including Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia. Particular concern was expressed over the deterioration in US-Russian relations. Speakers stressed that a war between the U.S. and Russia is possible, even likely, under current conditions; that such a war could escalate to nuclear exchanges; and could, in that case, trigger a Nuclear Famine or a Nuclear Winter and be a war to end civilization and even cause the extinction of the human species and many other forms of life on the planet. These concerns are not meant to be alarmist, but they are meant to sound an alarm.
Hope to Action
There was general agreement that nuclear war poses an existential threat to humankind and that the warning sirens are now sounding. There is hope that such a war can be avoided, but that hope, while necessary, is not sufficient to end the nuclear threat now facing humanity and complex life on the planet. Hope must be joined with action to end the nuclear weapons era in order to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. And the action must be preventive in nature since there is virtually no possibility of recovery from a nuclear war. In fact, if one side only were to launch its nuclear arsenal at the other and there were no retaliatory response, the likelihood is that the initial attack would be sufficient to destroy not only the opponent but the attacking side as well. Thus, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) must not be reconsidered in light of Self-Assured Destruction (SAD), even for the attacking side.
U.S.-Russia Temperatures Rise
The U.S. and Russia must step back from the confrontations in which they have been engaged in Europe, Ukraine, Syria, the Middle East and elsewhere. The discourse must be shifted from confrontation and military might to finding common ground through diplomacy to step back from the brink. This is the only sensible way forward. As many leaders, including Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, have long realized and stated, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Citizens of the two countries, as well as leaders, have a role to play in assuring their common future. It is time for citizens to enter the discourse in their own interests and those of their families and communities. We have come too far to sacrifice the future on the dangerous shoals of nationalism, militarism and nuclearism. As Einstein warned early in the Nuclear Age, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” We must change our modes of thinking, our discourse and our actions if we are to prevent a catastrophic nuclear war, one that could be initiated by malice or mistake, by anger or accident.
The goal must be complete nuclear disarmament, and required negotiations to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world must commence now. It is positive news that non-nuclear weapon states at the United Nations have voted to begin negotiations in March 2017 for a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, all nuclear weapon states except North Korea voted against the resolution to begin negotiations or abstained, as did most of the U.S. allies who shelter under its nuclear umbrella. Such attachment to nuclear weapons and the policies that sustain them is dangerous in the extreme and sends exactly the wrong message to the world. It is a display of hubris when wisdom is desperately needed. The question for the non-nuclear weapon states is: can they create a meaningful nuclear ban treaty – one with normative and moral strength – without the participation of key nuclear weapons states? There was general agreement that the negotiations for a treaty to fill the legal gap in prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons is one of the most important and promising initiatives currently on the international agenda.
Youth and the Media Must Take the Lead
There was discussion that two groups in particular could lead the way toward ending the nuclear era: the media because of their power and influential outreach, and youth because of their larger stake in the human future.
The media needs to get and convey the message that nuclear weapons pose far too great a risk to the human future, and nuclear war would be a catastrophe beyond our ability to imagine. The media must awaken to the existential dangers of nuclear war and help to awaken people throughout the world to these dangers. Just as the media has helped to propel a widespread understanding of the existential dangers of climate change, it must do the same for nuclear dangers through documentaries, feature films, news and analysis, fiction, and the use of various forms of social media.
How to break through the ignorance and apathy of young people regarding nuclear dangers was recognized as a significant challenge. It was noted that documentaries, like “The Untold History of the United States,” seem to hold promise for reaching this audience and that more of this educational work needs to be done. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists “Voices of Tomorrow” program, which involves young writers in the Bulletin’s web content, also offers hope for the next generation’s involvement. And capturing the attention of the Bernie Sanders movement could also offer a way to mobilize young people around the need for nuclear weapons abolition. Further, it would be valuable to expand the use of NAPF’s Peace Literacy Program in schools, places of worship and social organizations such as Rotary International.
The Wisdom of Russell and Einstein
The symposium concluded with reference to a key paragraph from one of the most important documents of the 20th century, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”
This warning is as valid today as when it was issued in 1955, but it has been largely overlooked or forgotten. It could become the basis for a new discourse for humanity.
For more information on the symposium, click here.
“The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse”
Santa Barbara, USA
It is a great honor to be able to hold this international symposium “The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse,” here in Santa Barbara, this beautiful city set between the mountains and the sea. On behalf of Soka Gakkai International (SGI) members in 192 countries and territories worldwide, I would like to express our most heartfelt gratitude to all participants and all those whose support has made this event possible.
For years, Dr. David Krieger has led the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) with unyielding energy and vision as it has developed a broad range of activities for peace. In addition to this symposium, it has been our pleasure to support and collaborate with NAPF on a number of projects, including the collection of some 5 million signatures for the Nuclear Zero campaign and cosponsoring an event calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons held in The Hague. Allow me to take this opportunity to express again my deepest respect for Dr. Krieger and all our esteemed friends at NAPF.
In light of the continued spread of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of related threats, there is shared and growing concern about the inhumane nature of these weapons. We see this in the increasing number of countries supporting the “Humanitarian Pledge” as a path to resolving this issue. Within global civil society, there is a rising chorus of voices calling for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, with new forms of action being increasingly taken up by members of the younger generation.
Against this backdrop, this past August, the United Nations Open-ended Working Group adopted a set of recommendations calling for the holding of a conference in 2017 to negotiate a legally binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons. It is imperative that this conference be held next year, decisively strengthening momentum to bring the age of nuclear weapons to a close.
The enduring inspiration for the SGI’s efforts for nuclear abolition is the declaration made by the second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda, in 1957, at the height of Cold War tensions, in which he denounced these weapons as an absolute evil and called for their elimination. To quote that declaration: “Although a movement calling for a ban on the testing of atomic or nuclear weapons has arisen around the world, it is my wish to go further, to attack the problem at its root. I want to expose and rip out the claws that lie hidden in the very depths of such weapons.”
As Buddhists who regard the sanctity of life as a paramount value, we have worked with people and organizations who share our commitment, engaging in a wide range of activities in venues throughout the world. These have included mounting exhibitions and creating a variety of forums for dialogue and learning.These activities have been rooted in the conviction that the key to breaking through the current deadlock lies in fostering global solidarity among ordinary citizens, unleashing the power of change and ushering in the dawn of a new and hope-filled era.
The challenge of nuclear weapons abolition must be a shared global enterprise, engaging all states and civil society actors. It is a struggle to counter the core pathology of contemporary civilization—the all-too-casual disregard for life, its value and sanctity. The struggle for nuclear abolition is an effort to redirect the world toward an authentically human orientation. Today is United Nations Day, and I am confident that the elimination of nuclear weapons must be a vital milepost toward the enduring realization of the ideals of the UN Charter: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.”
We must bring this nuclear age to an end. To achieve this, we are committed to continuing our efforts, with unflagging energy and alongside our respected friends, to expand the global popular solidarity for nuclear weapons abolition.
In closing, I offer my best wishes for the health, well-being and success of all the participants in this symposium.
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
October 24, 2016
Photograph: CIJ-ICJ/UN-ONU, Capital Photos/Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.
On October 5, the International Court of Justice declared that it does not have jurisdiction in the nuclear disarmament cases brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom (UK).
By an 8-8 vote, with President Ronny Abraham of France issuing the casting “no” vote, the Court declared that there was not sufficient evidence of a dispute between the RMI and the UK, and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction. Similar judgments were issued in the cases against India and Pakistan, with those votes coming in at 9-7.
By dismissing the cases on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the Court did not examine the merits of the cases. The cases aimed to hold the nine nuclear-armed states (U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) accountable for violating international law by failing to respect their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.
In the 8-8 judgment in the UK case, the following judges voted against the Court having jurisdiction: Abraham (France); Owada (Japan); Greenwood (UK); Xue (China); Donoghue (U.S.); Gaja (Italy); Bhandari (India); and Gevorgian (Russia). According to the ICJ website, “A Member of the Court is a delegate neither of the government of his own country nor of that of any other State. Unlike most other organs of international organizations, the Court is not composed of representatives of governments.” It is striking to note, however, that six of the judges come from nuclear-armed states, while the other two (Japan and Italy) are deeply invested in the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.”
The RMI showed remarkable courage and foresight in bringing these cases to the ICJ. When the cases were filed on April 24, 2014, Tony de Brum, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, said, “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities. The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threaten us all.”
These cases brought by the Marshall Islands have inspired activists around the world and have demonstrated to other non-nuclear weapon states that it is possible to stand up to the nuclear-armed countries to demand justice.
Photograph: CIJ-ICJ/UN-ONU, Capital Photos/Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.
October 5, 2016 – The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, delivered its judgments on preliminary issues in the Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom (UK).
By a vote of 8-8, by the casting vote of Ronny Abraham, President of the Court, the Court upheld the objection of the United Kingdom that there was not sufficient evidence of the existence of a dispute, and therefore the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits.
By votes of 9-7, the Court upheld the objections of India and Pakistan that there was not sufficient evidence of the existence of a dispute, and therefore the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to hear the cases on the merits.
The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands released an official statement following the judgments, which can be found at the end of this press release.
Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, said, “We are pleased that the Court recited its unanimous decision of 1996 that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Likewise we are pleased that half of the judges of the highest court in the world confirmed, as the Marshall Islands alleged, that jurisdiction exists here. Nonetheless it is difficult to understand how eight judges could have found that no disputes existed in these cases when they were filed. So that is very disappointing. It is particularly worrying that the World Court cannot be unanimous on what it takes to establish a dispute in the context of nuclear disarmament.”
These unprecedented lawsuits were submitted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to the ICJ on April 24, 2014. They aimed to hold the nine nuclear-armed states (U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) accountable for violating international law by failing to respect their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.
Only the UK, India and Pakistan appeared before the Court, since only they accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. China, the U.S., Russia, France, Israel and North Korea chose to ignore the ICJ cases. The RMI also has a nuclear disarmament case pending against the United States in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a consultant to the RMI, said, “In bringing these lawsuits, Tony de Brum and the Marshall Islands have demonstrated the courage and determination to act and speak, based on conviction and bitter, tragic experience, for the benefit of all humankind. De Brum and the Marshall Islands made the choice to act in a constructive manner to find a path to end the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. With the lawsuits, the Marshall Islands challenged the nuclear-armed states to show good faith in meeting the universal legal obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament. The Marshall Islands itself has shown good faith fulfilment of that obligation in a dignified, respectful way, through court action.”
Contact information for the International Legal Team:
A complete list of the International Legal Team as well as information on the lawsuits can be found at www.nuclearzero.org. The California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Official statement from the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands:
“While these proceedings were initiated by a previous government administration, and have been carried forward, the Marshall Islands has – for decades – repeatedly reminded the international community that our own burden and experiences with nuclear detonation must never again be repeated – this includes Marshallese who petitioned the United Nations in 1954 and 1956 to cease the nuclear testing program during its status as a UN Trust Territory. Recent nuclear tests in North Korea are a stunning example of clearly unacceptable risks which remain with us all.
While it may be that there are several political pathways to sharply reducing – and eliminating – nuclear risk, further progress on nuclear disarmament appears stalled. Without further flexibility and political will by all sides of the table, and with all necessary actors – and without common agreement on a way forward, it is as though there is no visible path to a world free of nuclear weapons, and the peace and security which accompany it. Such a lack of progress is no way to honor or respond to the lesson that Marshallese people have offered the world.
We look forward to studying closely the Court’s opinion before commenting further.”
The person who came closest to this may have been Tony de Brum, former foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, who died last week of cancer at age 72.
