Tag: nuclear zero

  • Acceptance Speech for the Sean MacBride Peace Prize

    On December 5, 2014, the International Peace Bureau awarded the Sean MacBride Peace Prize the people and government of the Marshall Islands. Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum accepted the award. His speech is below. Video of the award ceremony is available here.

    tony_debrumI am deeply honored to receive this, to accept this award, on behalf of the people and the government of the Marshall Islands. I accept it on behalf of President Christopher Loeak and his government, who have been very supportive of all our efforts in every faction on the floor of Parliament, in the cabinet, throughout the ministries and the public service, through the education system, through the public live broadcast system and in all of our encounters with the young people of the country – educational meetings, graduation speeches, and the like.

    I accept it with humility on behalf of all the people of the Marshall Islands, for all the fathers of the many families, both those that remain in their homelands, and those that are so sadly separated from the land which nurtured their parents and their grandparents and which gives them the soul to be Marshallese persons.

    I accept it on behalf of the women of the Marshall Islands who have had to quietly suffer through the years the indignation, the shame, the hardship of being cast aside as different or as deserving of their fate because they happened to not know what it was that affected them. I accept it on behalf of those women, especially of the community of Rongelap, who on the morning of Bravo – two days after Bravo actually was still the morning of Bravo in Rongelap – had to withstand the shame of being stripped naked in front of their village, in the village square, to be hosed down to get rid of the radioactive powder on their bodies, in front of their children, their sons, and their male relatives.

    I accept it on behalf of all the children who were born partly human: jellyfish babies, children who were born without arms, or without heads, brains, but with a heart that beat nevertheless for some reason.

    I accept it on behalf of children who have died because they had no access to medical care, proper medical care, whose diseases and sicknesses and anomalies could not be properly diagnosed because we were told that we could not hire doctors for the dead when we were struggling to employ doctors for the living.

    I accept it on behalf of those women who were accused of having illicit relationships which caused their children to become jelly babies, being accused of incestuous relationships and therefore not being capable of having proper babies.

    I accept it on behalf of the children who have survived, like my granddaughter whose two year battle with leukemia has resulted in a healthy nine-year-old in the fourth grade who is doing well, thank you, for now.

    I accept it on behalf of all the people of Bikini who cannot return home, but must stay in two split societies, one in Kili, one in Ejit, while they still call themselves Bikinians, and are proud to say “I come from KBE,” – Kili, Bikini, Ejit – because Kili is where one half of them stay, Ejit is where the other half, and Bikini is the place where they long to stay.

    My colleague, Obet Kilon, is from Bikini. He’s a young, up-and-coming Foreign Service officer in our government, and he will carry this banner long after I am dead and gone, I am sure. I accept it on behalf of Kilon and his family, and all the other people of Bikini.

    The people of Enewetak, who must now live as one society, when in truth, they are really two societies in one atoll, who always refer to themselves as the people of Engebi and of Enewetak living in Enewetak Atoll, unfortunately must live on one island in that atoll because it is contaminated, and the people of Engebi cannot return to Engebi. I accept it on behalf of the people of Enewetak who must witness the breakup of the dome at Runit with tons and tons and tons of plutonium-contaminated material.

    I accept it on behalf of the children of the Marshalls who will be born next year, and the year after, and the decade after who, for God’s sakes, must have a better life than their parents did.

    I accept it on behalf of all of those who have contributed to make it happen that we are recognized for filing the cases against the nuclear states in the ICJ. Without your support, without your counsel, without your confirmation that what we wanted to do was the right thing to do, it would have been difficult for us to step forward and carry out this very, very important step in bringing peace to the world in getting rid of nuclear weapons once and for all.

    I accept it on behalf of all those who have sent support for our efforts. I accept it on behalf of our friends from Japan, some of whom are here tonight, who have suffered more directly than we have.
    If there was one thing that we could point to and accept as perhaps a wish that no one could possibly deny exists in the heart of every Marshallese, it is that this madness be nipped at the bud, that it not be allowed to happen again, that war with nuclear weapons must be recognized for what it is: an evil end to civilization. It is no longer bombs being tested, it is no longer select cities where bombs will be dropped, and then things will be over. It is a final, a very final, act of insanity.

    And as someone earlier said, “How can we be sure that nuclear weapons will not be used again?” The only way to be sure that nuclear weapons are not used again is to make sure we don’t have any nuclear weapons to use. And the small islands of the Marshall Islands, barely 70,000 people, are maybe small islands but a big ocean country: we believe that firmly, and we want to share that belief with the world.

    I will take this medal back with me to the President and his cabinet, to Parliament in the January session, which begins the first Monday of January, and then we will pass it around to all the islands of the Marshalls for them to see, for the children to feel it, for the children to see that, yes, there are smart and concerned people in the world that believe like we do.

    The most rewarding part of doing what we do in spreading the word of nuclear peace is to see the eyes of children light up when they understand what is being done. Because the bad side of the story has been told to them, what we are trying to do is to tell them the good side of the story, and this will be a milestone in the telling of that story.

    Thank you very much.

  • Greenpeace Champions the Marshall Islands

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443

    sjones@napf.org

    Greenpeace champions the Marshall Islands
    Declares zero the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet

    Santa Barbara – Greenpeace, the most inclusive, people-powered collective movement in the world, is lending its strong support to the Marshall Islands and the Nuclear Zero lawsuits. In doing so, they are sending a clear message to the world that it is long past time for the nuclear Goliaths to begin negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

    greenpeace_hiresKumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International said, “We stand with the people of the Marshall Islands in their fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Having seen their land, sea and people poisoned by radiation, they are now taking to task the nine nuclear-armed nations for failing to eliminate this danger which threatens humanity at large.” He continued, “Greenpeace salutes their struggle and joins them in declaring that Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet.”

    “We are thrilled to have Greenpeace on board in this unprecedented effort,” said Rick Wayman, Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. “Their commitment to peaceful solutions and a better world could not be stronger, their bandwidth is huge and their ability to communicate creatively is unparalleled. Having their support will mean a great deal to the Marshall Islanders in their efforts to bring the nuclear-armed nations to the negotiating table.”

    The Marshall Islands is a small island nation in the Pacific whose people have suffered greatly as a result of U.S. atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s. Led by Foreign Minister Tony de Brum, this courageous nation is now at the forefront of activism for nuclear abolition. “After seeing what mere testing can do to human beings, it makes sense for the Marshallese people to implore the nuclear weapons nations to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world,” said Mr. de Brum.

    On April 24, 2014, The Marshall Islands filed unprecedented lawsuits in the International Court of Justice and U.S. Federal Court to hold the nine nuclear-armed nations accountable for flagrant violations of international law with respect to their nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law. The lawsuits do not seek monetary reparations. Rather, they seek a judicial order to require the nuclear-armed countries to cease modernizing their nuclear arsenals and to commence negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament.

    In a strong show of unity and strength, Mr. Naidoo has added his name to an open letter of support for the Marshall Islands lawsuits. The letter states, in part, “In taking this action, you [the Marshall Islands] and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the seven billion people who now live on Earth and on behalf of the generations yet unborn who could never be born if nuclear weapons are ever used in large numbers.” In addition to Mr. Naidoo, the letter is signed by Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Oscar Arias, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, and Adolpho Pérez Esquivel and some 80 other peace and social justice leaders from more than 25 countries around the world. To read the letter in its entirety, go to www.wagingpeace.org/rmi-open-letter.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has supported the Marshall Islands and their bold initiative since the project’s inception, serving as their strategic consultant while also assembling and coordinating a coalition of U.S. and international experts providing legal counsel to the Marshall Islands.

    “The Marshall Islands has given humanity a wake-up call. Each of us has a choice. We can wake up, or we can continue our complacent slumber,” said David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Founation. “The safety and security of every inhabitant of the planet, now and in the future, is at stake.”

    Anyone wishing to support the Marshall Islanders can do so by signing the #NuclearZero petition calling on nuclear weapons nations to urgently fulfill their moral duty and legal obligation to begin negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament. Visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    You can read the Greenpeace blog, Marshall Islands takes on the nuclear-armed states, for all our sakes at bit.ly/gp-zero. Follow the Nuclear Zero lawsuits on Facebook and Twitter, and follow Greenpeace on Facebook and Twitter.

    #      #      #

    For further information, or if you would like to arrange interviews, contact Rick Wayman at rwayman@napf.org or call (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – NAPF’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • Open Letter in Support of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Dear President Christopher Loeak,

    Dear Foreign Minister Tony de Brum,

    Dear People and Parliament of the Marshall Islands,

    The world salutes your initiative in taking legal action for negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” (the United States, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea).

    We hope that you will be joined in these lawsuits by as many governments as possible, and we will urge them to do so.

    In taking this action, you, and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the seven billion people who now live on Earth and on behalf of the generations yet unborn who could never be born if nuclear weapons are ever used in large numbers.

    You are also acting on behalf of all our ancestors throughout tens of millennia who will have their intellectual, cultural and scientific achievements cancelled should humanity terminate itself through the inadvertent or deliberate use of nuclear weapons.

    In addition, you are acting on behalf of untold thousands of other species who will surely perish in the catastrophic global climatic effects of a nuclear conflict.

    Win or lose in the coming legal arguments, what you, and any who join you, will do has the deepest moral significance, going far beyond the specific interests of any country or government and beyond the usual calculations of national self-interest.

    The unprecedented outburst of resounding applause that Foreign Minister Tony de Brum received in the plenary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting on 28 April 2014 shows that, for the world, you are all heroes.

    If you stay the course, alone or with a host of others, then what you will be doing is – to recycle a phrase already well-used – “not so much making history, as making history possible.”

    All people and all governments that have the welfare and survival of humanity and the planet at heart must support you wholeheartedly in your courageous legal action.

    (For further information see www.nuclearzero.org)

    Signed:

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, South Africa

    Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, Northern Ireland

    Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Laureate, Costa Rica

    Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, United States

    Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate, Iran

    Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Laureate, Argentina

    John Hallam (Letter coordinator), People for Nuclear Disarmament/Human Survival Project, Australia

    Prof. Peter King, Human Survival Project, Australia

    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, United States

    Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, Netherlands

    Aaron Tovish, Mayors For Peace 2020 Vision Campaign, Austria

    Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau, Switzerland

    Ingeborg Brienes, Co-President, International Peace Bureau, Switzerland

    Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs (Personal Capacity)

    Helen Caldicott, M.D., Founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Australia

    Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, United States

    Senator Scott Ludlam, Australia

    Jill Hall MP, Australia

    Judy Blyth, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

    Jenny Grounds, President, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Australia

    Chris Hamer, World Citizens Association / Scientists for Global Responsibility, Australia

    Nick Deane, Marrickville Peace Group, Australia

    Father Claude Mostowyk, MSC, Missionaries of the Sacred Hearth Justice and Peace Centre, Australia

    Ruth Russell, Convenor, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Australia

    Dennis Doherty, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

    Hanna Middleton, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

    Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sydney University, Australia

    Barney Richards, President, New Zealand Peace Council, New Zealand

    Bob Rigg, former Chair, National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament, New Zealand

    John Hinchcliffe, President, NZ Peace Foundation, New Zealand

    Dr. Kate Dewes,Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand

    Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, Ret.), Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand

    Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Bill Kidd MSP, United Kingdom

    Jenny Maxwell, Hereford Peace Council, United Kingdom

    Rae Street, Greater Manchester Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Godrick Ernest Scott Bader, Life-President, Scott Bader Ltd, United Kingdom

    Arthur West, Chair, Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Tony Simpson, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, United Kingdom

    Prof. Emeritus Kirsten Osen, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Norway

    Prof. John Gunnar Maeland, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Norway

    John Scales Avery, Ph.D., Chairman, Danish National Group, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Denmark

    Ingrid Schittich, Chairperson, Association of World Citizens, Germany

    Xanthe Hall, Disarmament Campaigner, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Germany

    Herman Spanjaard, M.D., Chair, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Netherlands

    Dr. Peter van den Dungen, General Coordinator, International Network of Museums for Peace, Netherlands

    Dominique Lalanne, Co-chair, Armes nucléaires STOP, France

    Jean-Marie Matagne, President, Action des Citoyens pour le desarmement nucleaire, France

    Pep Puig, Ph.D., Group of Scientists and Technicians for a Non-Nuclear Future, Spain

    Josep Puig, President, Eurosolar, Spain

    Santiago Vilanova, Journalist, Green Alternative, Spain

    Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou, President, Greek Medical Association for the Protection of the Environment and against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat, Greece

    Dr. Mubashir Hasan, President Punjab, Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan

    Sharon Dolev, Director, Israeli Disarmament Movement, Israel

    Sukla Sen, EKTA, India

    J. Narayana Rao, Secretary, Centre For Cultural, Educational, Economics and Social Studies, India

    Wilfred D’Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, India

    Dr. Ranjith S. Jayasekhara, Vice-President, Sri Lankan Doctors for Peace and Development, Sri Lanka

    Ronald McCoy, Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility, Malaysia

    Dr. Syed Husain Ali, Senator, Malaysia

    Hiro Umebayashi, Special Adviser, Peace Depot, Japan

    Hiroshi Taka, Representative Director, Japan Council against A & H Bombs (Gensuikyo), Japan

    Steve Leeper, Research Centre for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University, Japan

    Hideyuki Ban, Citizens Nuclear Information Centre, Japan

    Tadatoshi Akiba, Former Mayor of Hiroshima, Japan

    Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project, Canada

    Gordon Edwards Ph.D., President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Canada

    Martha Goodings, No2 Nuclear Weapons, Canada

    Vivian Davidson, President, World Federalist Movement – Vancouver Branch, Canada

    Patti Willis, Pacific Peace Working Group, Canada

    Phyllis Creighton, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Canada

    Larry Kazdan, CGA, Vancouver, Canada

    Saul Arbess, Director, Canadian Peace Initiative, Canada

    Global Alliance of Ministries for Peace

    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), United States

    Kathy Wanpovi Sanchez, Tewa Women United, United States

    Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council, United States

    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action, United States

    Stephen Vincent Kobasa, Coordinator, Trident Resistance Network, United States

    Lawrence Wittner, Professor Emeritus of History, SUNY/Albany, United States

    Ralph Hutchison, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, United States

    Blase Bonpane, Co-Director, Office of the Americas, United States

    Theresa Bonpane, Co-Director, Office of the Americas, United States

    Prof. Martin Hellman, Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, United States

    Alice Slater, New York Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Dr. Ruby Anne Chirino, Program Coordinator, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Mexico

  • The Mouse that Roared: Stand With the Marshall Islands

    The Marshall Islands is “the mouse that roared.”  It is a small island country standing up to the nuclear-armed bullies of the world saying, “enough is enough.”  It is in effect saying to the nuclear-armed countries, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk (on the false power and prestige of nuclear weapons).”  The Marshall Islands is acting with courage, compassion and commitment, taking risks for all humanity.  It is seeking to restore global sanity and end the overarching threat of nuclear omnicide.

    marshall_islands_flagThe Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” have the potential to awaken the public to the current status of nuclear weapons dangers.  For the most part, the public appears ignorant of or apathetic to these dangers.  Awakening the public may be an even more important function of the lawsuits than the legal rulings of the courts.

    The lawsuits raise the following issues:

    First, the nuclear-armed countries party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the US, Russia, UK, France and China) are obligated “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament . . . ”  The four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) have the same obligations under customary international law.

    Second, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to negotiate a cessation of the nuclear arms race.

    Third, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    Fourth, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to act in good faith.  They are not engaged in negotiations.  Rather, they are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The United States alone has plans to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

    Fifth, these breaches undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law itself.

    Sixth, continued reliance on nuclear weapons keeps the door open to nuclear proliferation by other countries and by terrorist organizations, and to nuclear weapons use, by accident or design.

    According to atmospheric scientists, even a small regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, in which each side used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities, would result in putting enough soot into the upper stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons and cause crop failures that could lead to a global nuclear famine resulting in the death by starvation of some two billion people.  It would be a heavy price to pay for the broken promises and breached obligations of the nine nuclear-armed countries.

    There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with some 94 percent of these in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.  A war between these two countries could trigger an ice age that would end civilization and potentially all complex life on Earth.

    In sum, the nuclear-armed countries have obligations under international law that they are breaching, and these breaches raise serious threats to the people of the world, now and in the future.  The Marshall Islands has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in an attempt to compel them to do what the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty promised to do long ago, and what all nine nuclear-armed countries are required to do under international law.

    The people of the world should follow the lead of the Marshall Islands, one of the smallest but most courageous countries in the world.  We should stand with the Marshall Islands and support them in their legal action.  The dream of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity should be not only the dream of the Marshall Islands, but our dream as well.  You can find out more about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits and sign a petition supporting the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • U.S. Nuclear Policy: Taking the Wrong Road

    David KriegerOn September 21, 2014, the International Day of Peace, The New York Times published an article by William Broad and David Sanger, “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms.”  The authors reported that a recent federal study put the price tag for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal at “up to a trillion dollars” over the next three decades.  It appears that Washington’s military and nuclear hawks have beaten down a president who, early in his first term of office, announced with conviction, “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Many U.S. military leaders, rather than analyzing and questioning the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence to provide security, are acting as cheerleaders for it.  Rear Admiral Joe Tofalo, director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, recently pontificated, “For the foreseeable future, certainly for our and our children’s and our grandchildren’s lifetimes, the United States will require a safe, secure and effective strategic nuclear deterrent.  The ballistic nuclear submarine forces are and will continue to be a critical part of that deterrent….”  He went on to argue that all legs of the nuclear triad – bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles – would be needed to “provide a strong deterrent against different classes of adversary threat.”

    Admiral Tofalo was backed up by Admiral Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who argued, “In a world where our traditional adversaries are modernizing, emerging adversaries are maturing and non-state actors remain elusive and dangerous, we must get 21st century deterrence right…the reality is that an effective modernized nuclear deterrent force is needed now more than ever.”

    All this emphasis on modernizing the nuclear deterrent force may be good for business, but ignores two important facts.  First, nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior that has not been and cannot be proven to work.  Second, it ignores the obligations of the U.S. and other nuclear-armed states to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries are gambling that nuclear deterrence will be foolproof rather than a game of chance, like nuclear roulette.  Rather than providing security for the American people, nuclear deterrence is a calculated risk, similar to loading a large metaphorical six-chamber gun with a nuclear bullet and pointing the gun at humanity’s head.

    The only foolproof way to assure that nuclear weapons won’t be used, by accident or design, is to abolish them.  This is what the generals and admirals should be pressing to achieve.  Negotiations in good faith for abolishing nuclear weapons are required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by customary international law.  Since these obligations have not been fulfilled in 44 years, one courageous country, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries, seeking the International Court of Justice to order their compliance.  They have also brought a lawsuit specifically against the U.S. in U.S. Federal Court.

    Rather than showing leadership by fulfilling its obligations for ending the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, the U.S. conducted a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test on September 23, just days after the International Day of Peace and days before the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26.  Such displays of arrogance, together with U.S. plans to spend some $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, suggest that if the people don’t demand it, we may have nuclear weapons forever, with tragic consequences.

    You can find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits and support the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

  • Small Island Country Attempts to Hold Hegemon to Its Promises: Interview with David Krieger

    David KriegerDavid Krieger, founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and its president since 1982, has lectured throughout the United States, Europe and Asia on issues of peace, security, international law and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Krieger is chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, chair of the Executive Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative, and a founder and member of the Global Council of Abolition 2000. The author or editor of more than 20 books, including five poetry volumes, and hundreds of articles on peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, Krieger agreed to participate in an email interview on the occasion of the latest twist in the Marshall Islands’ lawsuit in US Federal Court against the United States for its failure to honor its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    ***This article was originally published by Truthout.***

    Leslie Thatcher: Dr. Krieger, can you briefly explain what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is, who is signatory to it, when it was signed and what nations’ obligations under the treaty are?

    David Krieger: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signatures in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. The treaty contains a trade-off. It seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and also obligates its parties, including its signatory nuclear weapon states (US, Russia, UK, France and China), to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. A total of 190 parties have joined the treaty, only five of which are nuclear weapon states. The goal of the treaty is not only to stop other countries from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons, but to achieve a world with zero nuclear weapons by means of negotiations.

    Only one state party to the treaty has withdrawn from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons: North Korea. Three other countries never joined the treaty and have all developed nuclear weapons: Israel, India and Pakistan. These countries are not bound by the treaty itself, but by customary international law to do what the NPT requires of its parties.

    Where is the Marshall Islands and what is its particular interest in the treaty?

    The Marshall Islands is a small island country in the northern Pacific Ocean. It has approximately 70,000 inhabitants. The Marshall Islands was a testing ground for US nuclear weapons from 1946 to 1958. During that period the US conducted 67 nuclear and thermonuclear tests in the Marshall Islands with the equivalent explosive force of 1.7 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. Their people have experienced pain, suffering and premature death from the radioactive fallout of atmospheric and oceanic nuclear tests.

    What led them to sue the United States and what are they asking for?

    The Marshall Islands sued the US in US Federal Court and sued the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice not for compensation for themselves, but to assure that no other country or people suffer in the future from nuclear testing as they have, or are the victims of a future nuclear war. The Marshall Islands is asking the courts to declare that the nuclear-armed states are in breach of their obligations under the NPT and customary international law, and to order the nuclear-armed states to pursue and conclude those negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and for complete nuclear disarmament. For a small island country to take this legal action against the most powerful countries on the planet is an act of great courage. The Marshall Islands is trying to convince the nuclear-armed states to do what they are obligated to do. In essence, the Marshall Islands is a friend telling friends to stop driving drunk on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence.

    What are the implications of the recent US motion to dismiss that lawsuit?

    The US is trying to prevent the court from considering the merits of the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss it based on jurisdictional grounds, such as standing, political question doctrine, venue and the statute of limitations. The Marshall Islands have filed a strong response to the US motion to dismiss, and it will be up to the court to decide. But if the US actually felt confident that it was fulfilling its disarmament obligations under the NPT, it would welcome the opportunity to face the Marshall Islands in the courtroom on the merits of the case.

    How can concerned citizens support the Marshall Islanders?

    Concerned citizens can find out more about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits and support the people of the Marshall Islands by visiting www.nuclearzero.org. Individuals can sign a petition there in support of the Marshall Islands lawsuits.

  • Legal Sparring Continues in Nuclear Zero Lawsuit

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn September 8, the U.S. continued to argue its position to dismiss the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit filed on April 24 by the Republic of the Marshall Islands in U.S. Federal District Court.

    This reply comes in response to the Marshall Islands Opposition filed one month ago in which the RMI contends, among other points that:

    • While the Non-Proliferation Treaty is in effect and the U.S. is a party to it, there is no choice but for the U.S. to comply with it.
    • The courts determine compliance with the law, not the Executive.
    • The U.S. Constitution says “ALL” treaties are the supreme law of this nation. Not just some treaties, or ones the current President prefers at any particular time.
    • The NPT is a treaty, and under the plain language of our Constitution, the federal courts are charged with interpreting it, and resolving disputes involving it, such as this dispute.

    Essentially the U.S, in its reply to the RMI’s Opposition, continues to seek a dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds to avoid having the case heard on its merits. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “This reply from the U.S. government is more of the same. Clearly they do not want to risk having the case heard on its merits. Yet, doing so would benefit every citizen of the U.S. and the world. Nuclear weapons threaten us all.”

    Importantly, the U.S. reply does not dispute that Article VI of the NPT comprises an international legal obligation to begin negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Rather, it argues that the U.S. courts are not the right place to enforce this obligation. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, one would come away with the notion that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government should be allowed to police itself when it comes to deciding if they are acting lawfully and in good faith.

    Further, the reply argues “… that an attempt to resolve the matter would express a lack of respect due to the political branches and risk conflicting and potentially embarrassing pronouncements by various branches…” Whether or not the claims made against the U.S. might prove an embarrassment to the Executive Branch has no place in this argument and should be of zero legal consequence in U.S. Federal court.

    The simple fact remains that the Executive Branch is not participating in any negotiations on ending the nuclear arms race or nuclear disarmament. At the same time, it continues to spend billions of dollars modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It is not, of its own volition, fulfilling its Article VI obligations and requires intervention of the court.

    Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum said, “I remain hopeful that the U.S. Federal Court will recognize that the U.S. must meet their legal and moral obligations if we are to leave the world a safer place for all of humanity.”

    The U.S. reply is available online here.

    The court has scheduled a hearing on the U.S. Motion to Dismiss in October, 2014. Visit  nuclearzero.org for the latest updates.

  • Amicus Curiae Briefs Support Marshall Islands Lawsuit

    On August 21, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in its lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. The lawsuit, filed in April 2014, accuses the U.S. of breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by continuing to engage in a nuclear arms race and a failure to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    On the same day that RMI submitted its Opposition, three amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of RMI’s position. All of these organizations are part of the Nuclear Zero campaign to support the lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against all nine nuclear-armed nations.

    Tri-Valley CAREs (TVC) argues in its amicus brief that the venue of Northern California is appropriate because the district contains Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), one of the United States’ two major sites for nuclear weapons research, design, development and modernization. TVC should know; they have been working since 1983 to clean up LLNL’s pollution and convert the lab to engage in socially beneficial activities.

    Nuclear Watch New Mexico (NWNM) argues in its amicus brief that future funding levels for nuclear weapon modernization programs indicate that the U.S. is not committed to its NPT Article VI obligation. NWNM further argues that the United States is creating new military capabilities for U.S. nuclear weapons.

    Pax Christi International, Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War submitted a joint amicus brief. In it, they argue that the risk of nuclear catastrophe is substantial and that even a small regional nuclear war would put two billion people at risk of famine.

  • Letter: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Make Us Safer

    This letter to the editor of the Washington Post was published on August 22, 2014.

    Are NATO-based nuclear weapons really an advantage in a dangerous world, as Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley and Franklin Miller suggested in their Aug. 18 op-ed, “A dangerous proposition”? They are not. They make the world a far more dangerous place.

    Nuclear deterrence is not a guarantee of security. Rather, it is a hypothesis about human behavior, a hypothesis that has come close to failing on many occasions. Additionally, nuclear weapons are not “political weapons,” as the writers asserted. They are weapons of mass extermination.

    The United States and the other nuclear-armed countries are obligated under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or customary international law to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and complete nuclear disarmament. This is the substance of the Nuclear Zero lawsuits brought by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and in U.S. federal court. The United States continues to evade its obligations.

    Rather than continuing to posture with its nuclear weapons in Europe, the United States should be leading the way in convening negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons for its own security and that of all the world’s inhabitants.

    David Krieger, Santa Barbara, Calif.

    The writer is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Marshall Islands Will Not Give Up

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443
    sjones@napf.org

    The Marshall Islands will not give up
    The Marshall Islands files Opposition to U.S. motion to dismiss Nuclear Zero lawsuit.

    Santa Barbara –The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continued its efforts to compel the United States government to comply with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), asking a Federal Court judge to reject the U.S. government’s claim that the treaty cannot be enforced.

    On April 24, 2014, the Marshall Islands filed a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court, alleging the United States has violated its moral and legal obligations under the NPT by refusing to negotiate in good faith toward complete nuclear disarmament.

    On July 21, the U.S. responded to these allegations by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the issue of U.S. compliance with the treaty is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. The U.S. position fundamentally asks the Court to look the other way or, otherwise interpreted, takes the position that the U.S. is above the law.

    Yesterday, the RMI filed an Opposition to the U.S. motion to dismiss, explaining why the Court cannot and should not look the other way.

    “If the United States’ position is that in treaty disputes ‘might makes right,’ then I ask you, what does it mean—really—when a nation enters into a treaty with the United States?” said Laurie Ashton, attorney with the law firm Keller Rohrback LLP who serves as lead council for the Marshall Islands. “And what does the United States’ position say about its attempts to enforce other treaties, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention (recently against Syria), or, even more recently, the United States’ allegation that Russia is in breach of certain cruise missile test bans?”

    The Opposition filed by the Marshall Islands explains, among other points:

    • The Marshall Islands is not asking the Court to decide whether the United States should enter into the NPT, or whether the NPT is a good or a bad treaty for the United States. Instead, the Marshall Islands makes the legally grounded argument that while the Non-Proliferation Treaty is in effect and the U.S. is a party to it, there is no choice but for the U.S. to comply with it.
    • Prior rulings in U.S. courts make it clear that it is the courts that determine compliance with the law, not the Executive.
    • The U.S. Constitution says “ALL” treaties are the supreme law of this nation. Not just some treaties, or the treaties the current President happens to prefer at any particular time.
    • The NPT is a treaty, and under the plain language of our Constitution, the federal courts are charged with interpreting it, and resolving disputes involving it, such as this dispute.

    “The U.S. position in this suit has very poor implications for treaty enforcement—and those implications affect us all,” said Ashton.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is a consultant to the Marshall Islands on the legal and moral issues involved in bringing this case.

    David Krieger, President of NAPF, commented, “The Marshall Islands is a small, gutsy country. It is not a country that will be bullied, nor is it one that will give up. It knows what is at stake with nuclear weapons and is fighting in the courtroom for humanity’s survival. The people of the Marshall Islands deserve our support and appreciation for taking this fight into U.S. Federal Court and to the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world. In similar lawsuits filed in the International Court of Justice, the RMI has sued all nine nuclear-armed countries for breaching their nuclear disarmament obligations.”

    The RMI was used as the testing ground for 67 nuclear tests conducted by the United States from 1946 to 1958. These tests – equivalent to 1.7 Hiroshima bombs being exploded daily for 12 years – resulted in lasting health and environmental problems for the Marshall Islanders. The RMI Nuclear Zero lawsuit against the U.S. seeks no compensation, but rather, seeks action to commence and conclude negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament by 2020, thus ending the nuclear weapons threat for all humanity, now and in the future.

    Tony de Brum, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Marshall Islands, emphasizes that the Marshallese 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.”

    To read the Opposition in its entirety, visit www.wagingpeace.org/documents/rmi-response.pdf. For the latest updates on the Nuclear Zero lawsuit, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    #                 #            #

    For further information, or if you would like to interview David Krieger or Laurie Ashton, contact Rick Wayman at rwayman@napf.org or call (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – NAPF’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.