Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear zero

  • A Small Republic with Big Principles

    Robert LaneyWhen one is called upon to speak on Sadako Peace Day concerning the necessity of peace in the nuclear age, what can one say that has not been said many times before by speakers more knowledgeable and eloquent than oneself? In this connection I am fortunate that the year 2014 is witnessing a little publicized but unique and potentially historic development in the long campaign for nuclear disarmament. But before we discuss this development, let us consider the meaning of Sadako Peace Day and our purpose in gathering at this lovely spot every year on August 6th.

    Of course you know that August 6, 1945 was the day that the U. S. Army Air Corps dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was the first use of this new and most dreadful form of weaponry in war. Please forgive a few gruesome statistics which I hope will add some context to our gathering today. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima caused approximately 90,000 deaths immediately and an additional 50,000 deaths by the end of the year. You also know that three days later on August 9th, the Army Air Corps dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. This bombing caused approximately 40,000 deaths immediately and an additional 35,000 deaths by the end of the year.

    [Parenthetically you may not realize that during the three day period between these two events, the victorious allies in Europe – the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France – agreed to put certain Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg for war crimes. Whether the irony of this timing occurred to any of the allies at the time is a question I shall leave to the historians.]

    In any case at the time of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a little two-year-old girl by the name of Sadako Sasaki was living in the city with her family. Although Sadako was not overtly hurt at the time of the bombing, nine years later in November of 1954 she developed swellings on her neck and behind her ears. By January of 1955 purple spots had formed on her legs. By February Sadako, then age 12, had been diagnosed with leukemia and was hospitalized at the Red Cross Hospital in Hiroshima. During that summer Sadako’s best friend came to visit her. Her friend brought a square piece of gold paper and reminded Sadako of the ancient Japanese legend that promises to anyone who folds a thousand paper cranes that she will be granted a wish. So Sadako began folding cranes. On one of the cranes she wrote the words, “I shall write peace on their wings, and they will fly all over the world.” The story goes that Sadako was able to fold 644 cranes before she passed away in October of that year at the age of 12. Her many friends and schoolmates then took upon themselves to complete the 1,000 cranes and buried them with her.

    Sadako was among many Japanese citizens, especially children, who developed leukemia after the atomic bombings. By the early 1950s it was clear that this unusually high incidence of leukemia had been caused by radiation exposure.

    Today there is a statue of Sadako at the Peace Park in Hiroshima which depicts her holding a golden paper crane. At the foot of the statue is a plaque that reads: “This is our cry. This is our prayer. Peace in the world.” Sadako’s story is famous among the Japanese, who regard her as a symbol of all the children who died from the effects of the atomic bombs. Today people all over Japan celebrate August 6th as their annual peace day. We at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation believe it only fitting that we follow their example by gathering at this little peace park for our own remembrance of those events and to ponder their meaning for us today.

    Of course many of the survivors of the atomic bombs are still living today. In Japan these survivors are known as “Hibakusha,” which means “explosion-affected people.” Some of these Hibakusha have devoted their lives to raising public awareness of the dangers of nuclear war and of the potential effects of nuclear weapons. [If there are any Hibakusha here today, would you please rise so that we may recognize you and express our appreciation?]

    Now let me explain why I believe the abolition of nuclear weapons is so important. In a nutshell, I believe that a world without nuclear weapons – a world of “Nuclear Zero,” as we say at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – would be far more safe and secure for everyone than the world we live in today. It seems to me that this proposition is unassailable because there is no threat that any nation faces from any other nation or group for which the use of nuclear weapons would not make the problem worse – far worse – even for the nation using the weapons. Let me repeat: a world with zero nuclear weapons would be far more safe and secure for everyone than the world we live in today.

    This brings me to my second proposition: nuclear weapons are simply too dangerous to be in the possession of fallible human beings. We all know that military forces, like all human organizations, are prone to accidents, mistakes, misperceptions, and mental and emotional disorders. The recent destruction of the civilian airliner over eastern Ukraine is only one of a long train of tragic examples that we could point to. To mention a comparable tragedy, in 1988 the U.S. Navy destroyed a civilian airliner by mistake over the Persian Gulf, causing a total loss of life similar to that in the Ukraine tragedy. With respect to nuclear weapons, for those who are not convinced that we are living on borrowed time after a series of narrowly averted catastrophes during the nuclear age, the history to read is Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. In our hubris as a society and as a species, we are living with the illusion that human beings have a god-like capacity to maintain and deploy nuclear weapons without serious risk of accidents, mistakes, misperceptions, and mental and emotional disorders.

    Now let me switch gears and tell you about a small but proud nation in the northwestern Pacific known as the Republic of the Marshall Islands. This small island nation consists of 24 coral atolls and is home to approximately 70,000 people. During the 12-year period from 1946 through 1958 the U. S. Government used the Marshall Islands as a testing ground, first for atomic weapons, and later for far more powerful thermonuclear weapons. During this period the Government exploded a total of 67 of these weapons in the Marshall Islands. The horrific environmental and health effects of these tests are still a daily experience for many in these Islands today.

    Fast forward to 1962, when the Cuban missile crisis brought the United States and the Soviet Union so close to nuclear war that they saw the need to bring this potentially catastrophic risk under control. The result was a grand, worldwide treaty, imprecisely known as the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” which came into force in 1970. By this Treaty the great majority of nations of the world promised not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons. Further, those nations and the few nations then in possession of nuclear weapons – the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China – agreed to negotiate in good faith to terminate the nuclear arms race and to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet.

    Now, 44 years later, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a state party to the Treaty, is standing up to the nuclear giants and by its actions is saying to them,

    “Enough is enough. More than forty years ago you, the nuclear giants, promoted and engineered this grand bargain by which the nations without nuclear weapons agreed not to seek or acquire them, and in return you promised to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. Now after more than four decades, the world still waits for these negotiations to begin. Having kept our end of the bargain, we the Republic of the Marshall Islands are taking action against you, the nuclear giants, by initiating lawsuits in the International Court of Justice by which we seek to hold you accountable for your respective failures to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. For jurisdictional purposes we also have initiated a separate lawsuit against the United States in U.S. federal court in San Francisco. Although Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are not parties to this Treaty, we also have initiated lawsuits against them in the International Court of Justice for their failures to negotiate for nuclear disarmament as required by customary international law. The time has come for you to answer in court for your failures to negotiate for disarmament. We seek no financial compensation from these legal proceedings. We seek only that you be required by the courts to perform your end of the bargain, that is, to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament.”

    That is the effective message of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the nuclear giants. These lawsuits may seem like something out of Don Quixote – a small country challenging the nuclear giants in courts of law over their failures to negotiate for disarmament. Can small countries really do this? We shall see; like the Apollo moon landings, lawsuits like these have never been attempted before. But when the vast majority of countries enter into a grand bargain in which they promise not to acquire nuclear weapons, and in return the relatively few nuclear giants promise to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, and then more than four decades pass without negotiations for disarmament, to what institutions can the non-nuclear countries turn for help other than the courts? Is enforcing bargains, even grand, multi-national treaties, not a role of the courts? If not, then what is the value of this Treaty, or for that matter any treaty, in world affairs? Our Government likes to speak of “the rule of law” as a necessary feature of a free and just society. And yet if nations do not allow courts of law to judge their performance of their mutual legal obligations, then what does that imply for the rule of law among nations? And in the case of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, what would that imply for the long-term survival of our species?

    Of course challenging the nuclear giants in court over their failures to negotiate for disarmament would entail political and economic risks for any country, large or small. No country can afford to challenge the nuclear giants lightly on such a sensitive and emotional issue. Therefore we at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, with our long-standing commitment to the universal, transparent, irreversible, and verifiable abolition of nuclear weapons from the planet, are especially proud to associate ourselves with this small Republic’s historic and courageous challenge to the continuing possession of nuclear weapons by a very few rogue nations.

    As you surely recognize, there is a sense in which the Marshall Islands represent not only their own citizens by these lawsuits, but in the final analysis all of humankind. When the Republic filed these lawsuits on April 24th, their Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tony de Brum, 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.” Although the Republic will receive no thanks from the nuclear giants, the rest of us may wish to convey to the Republic our humble gratitude, our admiration, and our moral support. And we might ponder what the example of this small republic with big principles can teach us about moral courage, leadership, the rule of law, and perhaps even the survival of our species.

    For your information the Foundation seeks to keep you current on the progress of these lawsuits through the Foundation’s website wagingpeace.org. In addition the Foundation has established another website, nuclearzero.org, which is dedicated solely to these lawsuits and invites you to sign a petition by which you may register your support. Of course if you have questions, please ask a member of the Staff, myself, or another member of the Board. Based upon our experience since the Marshall Islands filed these lawsuits on April 24th, you should not rely upon the major U.S. news media to keep you informed. Why this should be, I shall leave for you to determine.

    Many thanks for your kind attention.

  • The Marshall Islands: Sounding a Wake-Up Call

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) is an island country in the northern Pacific with a population of approximately 70,000 people. For such a small country, it is making big waves.  As a country at risk of being submerged due to rising ocean levels, the RMI has played a leadership role in the international conferences concerned with climate change.  As a country that suffered 12 years of devastating U.S. nuclear testing, it has also chosen to take action to assure that the no other country suffers the fate its citizens have due to nuclear weapons.  It has sued the nine nuclear-armed countries for failing to meet their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    marshall_islands_flagThe RMI is a bold, courageous country.  It may be small, but its leaders are not intimidated by the most powerful countries in the world.  It speaks truth to power and it is tackling two of the most critical survival issues of our time.  It is acting for its own survival, but also for the future of humanity and other forms of complex life on the planet.

    In a July 12, 2014 article in the Guardian, “Why the next climate treaty is vital for my country to survive,” RMI Foreign Minister Tony de Brum wrote, “As I said to the big emitters meeting in Paris, the agreement we sign here next year must be nothing less than an agreement to save my country, and an agreement to save the world.”

    In an interview published on the Huffington Post on May 30, 2014, de Brum was asked about what effects the lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries would have on the discourse of nuclear disarmament worldwide.  He replied, “It should stimulate intelligent discourse and wise solutions.  For what would it gain the world for instance, to be protected from climate change, only to suffer massive destruction from nuclear weapons?  All our efforts to be sane about the future must be connected to survival and peace.  The right hand cannot be out seeking climate peace while the left is busy waging nuclear war.”

    How are we to regard the bold actions of this small country?  One way they have been viewed is as quixotic, tilting at windmills.  But this misses the point.  They are doing what they can to save the world.  They are saying, in effect, that power does not have special prerogatives, particularly when the survival of their islands and of all humanity is at stake.  They are modelling by their behavior that we all have a stake in these survival issues.  If they can speak up, so can we, and the more of us who do speak up, the more likely we will save our planet and ourselves.

    I like to think of the lawsuits brought by the Marshall Islands as David pitted against the nine nuclear Goliaths, with the exception that the Marshalls have substituted the courts and the law for a slingshot.  Their action is nonviolent, seeking a judicial order to require the nuclear-armed countries to cease modernizing their nuclear arsenals and to begin negotiating for complete nuclear disarmament.

    Another way to think about the Marshall Islands is as “The Mouse that Roared.”  The RMI is small, but mighty.  In the classic Peter Sellers’ movie, a small, fictional country sets out to lose a war against the United States in order to obtain reparations and save itself from bankruptcy.  In the case of the Marshall Islands, they hope to win the battle, not for reparations, but for human survival on both the climate change and nuclear abolition fronts.

    Finally, it is worth observing that the Marshall Islands is not acting with malice toward the countries that it challenges on climate change or toward those it is suing for failing to meet their legal and moral obligations for nuclear disarmament.   In this sense, it is following the old saying, “Friends do not let friends drive drunk.”  The big, powerful countries have been driving drunk for too long.  The safety of their citizens is also at stake, as is the safety of every inhabitant of the planet, now and in the future.

    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.  If you would like to be a hero for nuclear zero, you can support the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

  • U.S. Moves to Dismiss Marshall Islands Lawsuit

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Rick Wayman
    (805) 965-3443 or (805) 696-5159
    rwayman@napf.org

    U.S. Moves to Dismiss Marshall Islands Lawsuit

    On July 21, 2014, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the Nuclear Zero lawsuit that was filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) on April 24, 2014 in U.S. Federal Court.

    The tiny Pacific nation of the Marshall Islands filed a lawsuit against the United States, claiming that the U.S. has breached its obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by continuing to modernize its nuclear arsenal and by failing to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament. The RMI requested that the Court declare the United States in breach of its Treaty obligations and order the U.S. to call for and convene, within one year from the Court’s judgment, negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

    The RMI was used as the testing ground for 67 nuclear tests conducted by the United States from 1946 to 1958. These tests resulted in lasting health and environmental problems for the Marshall Islanders. The RMI lawsuit against the U.S. seeks no compensation, but rather, seeks to end the nuclear weapons threat, not only for itself, but for all humanity, now and in the future.

    The U.S., in its move to dismiss the RMI lawsuit, does not argue that the U.S. is in compliance with its NPT disarmament obligations. Instead, it argues in a variety of ways that its non-compliance with these obligations is, essentially, justifiable, and not subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

    Laurie Ashton, lead attorney representing the RMI, states, “The U.S. government assumes, as it must at this stage in the case, that the U.S. is in breach of its promises under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Nonetheless, the U.S. government argues that there is no legal remedy for those breaches—either because the breaches cause no harm or because the breaches raise only political issues, or because the Marshall Islands waited too long to complain in court about the breaches.  These disappointing arguments hammer at the very foundation of every treaty to which the U.S. is a party, and the courts should reject them.”

    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, upon hearing of the motion to dismiss the case by the U.S. responded, “The U.S. government is sending a terrible message to the world – that is, that U.S. courts are an improper venue for resolving disputes with other countries on U.S. treaty obligations. The U.S. is, in effect, saying that whatever breaches it commits are all right if it says so. That is bad for the law, bad for relations among nations, bad for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament – and not only bad, but extremely dangerous for U.S. citizens and all humanity.”

    Krieger continued, “In 2009, President Obama shared his vision for the world, saying, ‘So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.’ This lawsuit provides the perfect opportunity for President Obama to move his vision forward. Yet, rather than seizing that opportunity, the U.S. government is seeking dismissal without a full and fair hearing on the merits of the case.”

    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. In the case against the U.S., the RMI legal counsel has one month to respond to the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss.

    To read the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, visit www.wagingpeace.org/documents/motion_to_dismiss.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, 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.

  • U.S. Motion to Dismiss: Above the Law?

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn July 21, 2014, the United States of America filed a Motion to Dismiss in the lawsuit filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands in U.S. Federal District Court. The U.S. makes many outrageous claims as to why this lawsuit should be dismissed. Taken individually or as a whole, these arguments are extremely concerning.

    The U.S. does not argue that it is in fact in compliance with Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the basis of the lawsuit). Instead, it argues that there is nothing that any country can do in a U.S. court of law about its non-compliance. In the motion, the U.S. seeks to avoid the Court getting to the merits of the case by challenging the lawsuit on five different grounds:

     

    1. Plaintiff does not have standing
    2. Political Question Doctrine
    3. The NPT is not self-executing
    4. Venue is improper
    5. Statute of limitations

    A response from the Republic of the Marshall Islands is due by August 21, 2014, and the U.S. reply is then due by September 8, 2014. An initial hearing is currently scheduled in Oakland, California, for September 12, 2014.

    Below are some selected quotes (in italics) from the government’s Motion to Dismiss, followed by my comments.

    From the Introduction

    If Plaintiff believes the United States has breached its treaty obligations, it may pursue the issue as a matter of foreign relations, rather than trying to manufacture a cause of action in federal court.

    This is exactly what many non-nuclear weapon states, including the Marshall Islands, have sought to achieve during the 44 years that the NPT has been in force. The U.S. has actively boycotted numerous recent attempts by nations to address the issue as a matter of foreign relations, including the Open-Ended Working Group (2013) and the conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Norway (2013) and Mexico (2014). Additionally, the U.S. sent a low-level representative to the UN High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament on September 26, 2013, while conducting a test launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile – the U.S.’s land-based nuclear missile – on that date.

    Argument 1: Plaintiff does not have standing

    Such generalized and speculative fear of the potential danger of nuclear proliferation does not constitute a concrete injury required to establish injury in fact.

    So in the case of nuclear weapons, what exactly would constitute a concrete injury? Death from a nuclear explosion or the ensuing radioactive fallout?

    The United States is not the only State with nuclear weapons, and the United States alone cannot therefore be identified as the source of the plaintiff’s purported injury.

    The Marshall Islands specifically chose to file lawsuits against all nine countries that possess nuclear weapons (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) because, in the eyes of RMI, all nine nations are guilty of violating international law. Obviously RMI could not sue the other eight nations in U.S. court; accordingly, they filed nine applications at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Unfortunately, the U.S. and five other nuclear-armed nations do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and may elect to avoid the lawsuits in that venue. The United Kingdom, India and Pakistan are the only nuclear-armed countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction to the ICJ.

    Moreover, it is entirely speculative whether, should this Court declare the United States in breach of its Article VI obligations and order the United States to call for and convene negotiations for nuclear disarmament, any other nuclear weapon state would agree to participate in such negotiations, let alone whether such a conference would lead to the cessation of the nuclear race or nuclear disarmament.

    The U.S. lawsuit specifically does not attempt to dictate the terms or outcomes of any negotiations – it simply wants negotiations to occur.

    Whatever the nature of that benefit, this Court could not provide relief that would remedy that alleged harm because such a remedy necessarily depends on the actions of other State Parties to the Treaty not before this Court.

    To repeat my previous point, the lawsuit seeks the commencement of negotiations. If other State Parties refuse to come to the table or do not negotiate in good faith, that is an issue that will need to be addressed. What is stopping the United States from attempting in good faith to convene such negotiations?

    Argument 2: Political Question Doctrine

    As an initial matter, an order of this Court declaring the United States in violation of its international Treaty obligations would squarely contradict, and interfere with, the position of the United States that it is “in compliance with all its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments.”

    That’s the point of the lawsuit. Just because you say something (the U.S. is “in compliance”) doesn’t mean that it is true. There is clear controversy here, and the case should receive a full and fair hearing in the Court.

    Even if this Court deemed it proper to decide whether the United States is in breach of its international obligations, it would have no standards by which it could determine, inter alia, the framework for future negotiations, or decide whether future negotiations would be sufficient.

    This lawsuit does not seek those things. It seeks commencement of negotiations in good faith.

    Indeed, this Court’s involvement in the NPT regime and multilateral disarmament negotiations could have myriad unanticipated consequences. For example, the arbitrary “one year” timeframe sought by plaintiff or the absence of nations not before this Court would present entirely new variables to confront in negotiations.

    The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the U.S. must convene negotiations in good faith within one year. That is not arbitrary. Article VI of the NPT calls for negotiations “at an early date.” The NPT entered into force in 1970. Forty-four years (or 45 or 46 years by the time a judgment is rendered) is much longer than an early date.

    Argument 3: The NPT is not self-executing

    Such language does not suggest that Article VI was intended to be enforced in federal courts. Indeed, Article VI “is… silent as to any enforcement mechanism” in the event of non-compliance.

    If the U.S. would comply with Article VI, there would not be any need to seek an enforcement mechanism. Even if the treaty is “silent” about an enforcement mechanism, it doesn’t mean that there should not be one if a party is blatantly in violation.

    Because the issue of judicial enforcement of Article VI of the NPT was not a central feature of the ratification debate, the record lacks any indication that Article VI was intended to be enforceable in domestic courts.

    Perhaps those debating ratification in the U.S. Senate in the late 1960s did not envision that, 44 years after the treaty entered into force, not even a glimmer of good faith negotiations would have taken place.

    The “infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations… It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.”

    Part of the case against the U.S. in this lawsuit is that it has refused to participate in multilateral forums such as the Open-Ended Working Group. Without a willingness to participate in good faith in international negotiations, what other option does an aggrieved party have than to bring the matter to the Court?

    Argument 4: Venue is improper

    However, it is unclear how that fact [that the National Nuclear Security Administration has a “nuclear weapons lab” in this district] bears anything more than a tangential relationship to this case when plaintiff’s claims are based on an alleged failure to conduct international negotiations, and plaintiff states expressly that it “is not requesting that the U.S. be compelled toward unilateral disarmament.”

    Since its founding in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has been deeply involved in research, design and testing of U.S. nuclear weapons. Today, nearly 90% of the annual budget of Livermore Lab is dedicated to nuclear weapons design, development, testing and maintenance. By continuing to fund the Livermore Lab at this rate, the U.S. is demonstrating a distinct lack of good faith in working to end the nuclear arms race and achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Argument 5: Statute of limitations

    However, the alleged “continuation” of the purported wrong does not entitle plaintiff to delay unreasonably in pursuit of a legal remedy.

    The U.S. has had 44 years since the NPT entered into force to pursue fulfillment of its Article VI obligations. Instead of fulfilling its obligations, the U.S. continues to engage in Life Extension Programs to modernize its remaining nuclear arsenal and add new military capabilities to some of its nuclear weapons. The U.S. and the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, United Kingdom, France, China) have spent years working on a glossary of terms to talk about nuclear weapon issues. It is still not finished. That’s what I call an unreasonable delay. There are no negotiations on the horizon among the “Nuclear Nine” without this legal action.

    Here, the issuance of declaratory (and associated injunctive) relief would be contrary to the public interest, as it would risk interfering with the efforts of the Executive Branch in the foreign and military arenas, where discussions regarding the appropriate steps in support of nuclear disarmament are ongoing. Indeed the next review conference on the NPT is scheduled for 2015 at the United Nations in New York, and, as always, the matter of efforts under Article VI will be subject of discussion among the multitude of State Parties.

    The U.S. appears to be quite happy with the snail’s pace of NPT Review Conferences. To state that it is contrary to the public interest to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament is shocking, shameful and nonsensical. There are no efforts by the Executive Branch to comply with Article VI of the NPT. The “appropriate steps in support of nuclear disarmament” are clearly spelled out in Article VI itself: negotiate. If you’re not convening a meeting, if you’re not sitting around a table talking about how to get to the end goal in a reasonable timeframe, your efforts are insufficient.

    Plaintiff should not now be permitted to raise its claims in disruption of the diplomatic context that has prevailed for a generation.

    I don’t think any comment is needed on this point. The U.S. government makes it clear how they feel about the status quo around nuclear weapons.

    Further Reading

    To read the initial complaint filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the United States on April 24, 2014, click here.

    To read the U.S. Motion to Dismiss filed on July 21, 2014, click here.

  • France Responds to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    french_flagOver the past few weeks, French elected officials have posed questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands in April 2014. France is one of nine countries being sued by the Marshall Islands for failure to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    The three French politicians are all members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND). PNND is a non-partisan forum for parliamentarians nationally and internationally to share resources and information, develop cooperative strategies and engage in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues, initiatives and arenas.

    For more information on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    Written Question 55528 (National Assembly)
    Mme Danielle Auroi, Green Party
    Original French Version

    Question (published on May 13, 2014): Ms. Danielle Auroi asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the case filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  This island nation served as a site of nuclear tests starting in the 1950s.  Over a period of twelve years, 67 nuclear tests were carried out there by the United States.  Many of the inhabitants of this archipelago still suffer from high levels of radiation.  Rather than demand compensation, on April 24 2014 the Republic of the Marshall Islands chose to file a case in the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law against the nine nuclear weapons states, including France.  Notably, the Republic of the Marshall Islands accuses France of neglecting its nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to in 1992 by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Also, she asks how France will respond to these allegations and by extension how it plans to ensure compliance with its nuclear disarmament obligations, in accordance with Article VI of the NPT.

    Answer (published on June 3, 2014): France has noted the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument in collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament which it (France) fully complies with.  It frequently presents in international gatherings the measures it has taken to carry it (the treaty) out effectively, unilaterally and in the framework of international treaties such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which it (France) ratified.  It has, for example, at the recent preparatory committee for the Examination Conference of 2015, made public a report published by the United Nations presenting in detail and full transparency its doctrine and its track record in nuclear disarmament.  It will continue to do so at the next session of the UN General Assembly and, most certainly, at the NPT Examination Conference next year in New York.  Acting on this track record, do note that France possesses today less than 300 nuclear warheads and no arms in reserve.  This number translates into a very significant reduction of French forces due to the evolution of the strategic context.  France has thereby diminished by half its arsenal in nearly 20 years.  It is the first nation not only to cease producing fissile materials for its arms but also to dismantle its production installations.  France sees the ban on fissile material production for arms as the next step in nuclear disarmament and has made ambitious proposals for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament at the international level in this vein.

     

    Written Question 11666 (Senate)
    M. Richard Tuheiava, Socialist Party
    Original French Version

    Question (published May 15, 2014): Mr. Richard Tuheiva asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the legal case introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against France before the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law.  On April 24 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a case against the nine UN-member nuclear weapons states, including France, which possesses an arsenal of under 300 nuclear warheads.  The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands is thereby accusing France of not respecting its nuclear disarmament obligations, according to its 1992 promise made by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, via Article 6, requires it to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty for general and total disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  France has not respected this obligation and, as the judicial inquiry by the Marshal Islands makes clear, is tirelessly pursuing the modernization of its arsenal through nuclear simulation programs and M51 ballistic missiles.  This modernization process goes against the spirit and the letter of the NPT.  Upon examination of the introductory document to the case filed by the Republic of the MarshalI Islands, it appears that it does not seek financial compensation from these proceedings, but that it is asking the International Court of Justice to order France “to take all necessary measures to meet, within a year from the pronouncement of the judgment, the obligations due according to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, among which are pursuing good faith negotiations, so as necessary in engaging them to conclude a convention on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects effected under strict and effective international control.”  He asks therefore what judicial and diplomatic follow-up the Government plans to give before this accusation by the small Pacific state.

    Answer (published June 26, 2014): France has noted the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument in collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament which it (France) fully complies with.  France has also subscribed to resolution 1887 of the Security Council made on September 24 2009, which commits “to work towards a world more secure for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the objectives stated in the NPT, in a manner that promotes international stability, and on the basis of the principal of security undiminished for all.”  France contributed greatly to efforts in the domain of nuclear disarmament.  It has taken unilateral decisions that led it, in nearly twenty years, to diminish its nuclear arsenal by half.  It possesses today less than 300 nuclear warheads and has no arms in reserve.  Furthermore, France was the first state not only to cease producing fissile materials for its arms, but also acted to irreversibly dismantle its production installations.  In a multilateral framework, France signed the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and was among the very first states to ratify this treaty.  In this framework, it put an end to nuclear tests and irreversibly dismantled its test center in the Pacific.  Finally, it pleads tirelessly in international meetings for the quick starting of negotiation for a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, which represents the logical next step in nuclear disarmament.  This treaty, which would quantitatively limit the development of nuclear weapons, would in effect complete the CTBT, which already imposes a qualitative limit to the development of nuclear arsenals.  None of the programs that the France has put into action to guarantee the security, feasibility, and maintenance of the capacities of its nuclear weapons contradict its international obligations. France abstains from developing new types of arms, or assigning new missions to its nuclear arms.

     

    Written Question 57699 (National Assembly)
    M. Philippe Plisson, Socialist Party
    Original French version

    Question (published June 17, 2014): Mr. Philippe Plisson asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the (legal) process set into motion by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against France in the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law.  On April 24 2014 the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a case against the nine nuclear weapons states, including France, which possesses an arsenal of less than 300 nuclear warheads. The Republic of the Marshall Islands is accusing France of not respecting its nuclear disarmament as promised in 1992 by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which according to Article 6 commits “to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty for general and total disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  France has not respected this obligation and, as the judicial inquiry by the Marshal Islands makes clear, is tirelessly pursuing the modernization of its arsenal through nuclear simulation programs and M51 ballistic missiles. This modernization process also goes against the spirit and the letter of the NPT.  He asks what judicial and diplomatic follow-up France plans to do regarding this accusation.

    Answer (published July 22, 2014): France has taken note of the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument of collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament to which it (France) fully conforms.  Furthermore, France subscribed to Resolution 1887 of the Security Council on September 24, 2009 which requires it “to work towards a world more secure for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the objectives stated in the NPT, in a manner that promotes international stability, and on the basis of the principal of security undiminished for all.”  France has greatly contributed to efforts in the domain of nuclear disarmament.  It made unilateral decisions that lead it, in nearly twenty years, to diminish its nuclear arsenal by half.  Today France possesses less than 300 nuclear warheads and no weapons in reserve.  In addition, France was the first state to not only cease production of fissile materials for nuclear arms but also to set about irreversibly dismantling its production installations.  In a multilateral framework, France has signed the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and was among the very first states to ratify this treaty.  In this framework, it has put an end to nuclear tests and irreversibly dismantled its test center in the Pacific.  It pleads tirelessly in international meetings for the quick onset of the negotiation for a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear arms, which represents the next step in the matter of nuclear disarmament.  This treaty, which would limit the quantitative development of nuclear arms, would in effect complete the CTBT, which already poses a qualitative limit on the development of nuclear arsenals.  None of the programs that France is putting into action to guarantee the safety, the reliability and the maintenance of its nuclear arms contradicts its international obligations.  France has abstained from developing new types of arms, or assigning new missions to its nuclear arms.

     

    Translations to English by NAPF Intern Jeremie Robins.

  • U.S. Conference of Mayors Calls for Nuclear Disarmament

    The U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted this resolution at its 82nd annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, in June 2014.

    Resolution No. 119: Calling for Constructive Good Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums

    US Conference of Mayors logoWHEREAS, Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, and is part of the supreme law of the land pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, states: “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

    WHEREAS, in 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial branch of the United Nations (UN) and the highest court in the world on questions of international law, issued an authoritative interpretation of Article VI, unanimously concluding: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”; and

    WHEREAS, forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, an estimated 16,400 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity, and there are no disarmament negotiations on the horizon; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S. and the eight other nuclear weapon possessing states are investing an estimated $100 billion annually to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals while actively planning to deploy nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S.-Russian conflict over the Ukraine may lead to a new era of confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, and nuclear tensions in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula remind us that the potential for nuclear war is ever present; and

    WHEREAS, in December 2012, the UN General Assembly established a working group open to all member states (the “Open-Ended Working Group”) “to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons,” and scheduled for September 26, 2013 the first-ever High-Level meeting of the UN General Assembly devoted to nuclear disarmament; and

    WHEREAS, in December 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which: “Calls for the urgent commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons to prohibit their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction;”…. “Decides to convene, no later than 2018, a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to review the progress made in this regard;” and “Declares 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons devoted to furthering this objective, including through enhancing public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination;” and

    WHEREAS, delegations representing 146 States, the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and civil society organizations participated in the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Nayarit, Mexico, February 13-14, 2014, to discuss global and long-term consequences of any nuclear detonation, accidental or deliberate, including impacts on public health, humanitarian assistance, the economy, the environment, climate change, food security and risk management; and

    WHEREAS, Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, Mexico’s Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, Chair of the Nayarit Conference, concluded: “The broad-based and comprehensive discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should lead to the commitment of States and civil society to reach new international standards and norms, through a legally binding instrument … [The] time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal… compris[ing] a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework … The 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks is the appropriate milestone to achieve our goal”; and

    WHEREAS, August 6 and 9, 2015 will mark the 70th anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed more that 210,000 people by the end of 1945, while the remaining “hibakusha” (A-bomb survivors) continue to suffer from the physical and psychological effects of the bombings; and

    WHEREAS, the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continue to suffer from the health and environmental impacts of 67 above-ground nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by the U.S. in their islands between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs detonated daily for 12 years; and

    WHEREAS, the RMI on April 24, 2014 filed landmark cases in the ICJ against the U.S. and the eight other nuclear-armed nations claiming that they have failed to comply with their obligations, under the NPT and customary international law, to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and filed a companion case in U.S. Federal District Court; and

    WHEREAS, the Administration’s FY 2015 budget request for maintenance and modernization of nuclear bombs and warheads, at more than $8.7 billion, in constant dollars exceeds the amount spent in 1985 for comparable work at the height of President Reagan’s surge in nuclear weapons spending, which was the highest point of Cold War spending; and

    WHEREAS, this enormous commitment to modernizing nuclear bombs and warheads and the laboratories and factories to support those activities does not include even larger amounts of funding for planned replacements of delivery systems – the bombers, missiles and submarines that form the strategic triad; in total, according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. will spend more than $700 billion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons systems; the James Martin Center places the number at an astounding one trillion dollars; and

    WHEREAS, this money is desperately needed to address basic human needs such as housing, food security, education, healthcare, public safety, education and environmental protection; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has adopted resolutions each year since 2010 calling for deep cuts in nuclear weapons spending and redirection of those funds to meet the needs of cities and adopted an additional resolution in 2011 “Calling on Congress to Redirect Military Spending to Domestic Needs”; and in 2013 called on the U.S. to participate in good faith in the UN Open-Ended Working Group and High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, and the Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons; and

    WHEREAS, Mayors for Peace continues to advocate for the immediate commencement of negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020 and its membership has grown ten fold since the “2020 Vision Campaign” was launched in 2003, surpassing 6,000 members in 158 countries, representing one seventh of the world’s population; and Mayors for Peace, with members in the U.S. and Russia; India and Pakistan, and Israel, Palestine and Iran can be a real force for peace.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its deep concern that the UN Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear disarmament and the Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons took place without the participation of the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China; that at the September 26, 2013 UN High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, the U.S. joined with France and the UK in a profoundly negative statement, delivered by a junior British diplomat: “While we are encouraged by the increased energy and enthusiasm around the nuclear disarmament debate, we regret that this energy is being directed toward initiatives such as this High-Level Meeting, the humanitarian consequences campaign, the Open-Ended Working Group and the push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention”; and that the U.S. voted against the 2013 UN General Assembly resolution calling for urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be hosted by Austria in Vienna, December 8-9, 2014, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors commends the Republic of the Marshall Islands for calling to the world’s attention the failure of the nine nuclear-armed states to comply with their international obligations to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and calls on the U.S. to respond constructively and in good faith to the lawsuits brought by the RMI; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to demonstrate a good faith commitment to its disarmament obligation under Article VI of the NPT by commencing a process to negotiate the global elimination of nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, under strict and effective international control, at the May 2015 NPT Review Conference, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges President Obama to engage in intensive diplomatic efforts to reverse the deteriorating U.S. relationship with Russia; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the President and Congress to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on its membership to proclaim September 26 in their cities as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to support activities to enhance public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors welcomes the appointment of Akron, Ohio and Mayor Donald Plusquellic as a Mayors for Peace regional lead city, and encourages all U.S. mayors for join Mayors for Peace; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its continuing support for and cooperation with Mayors for Peace.

    Submitted by:

    The Honorable Donald L. Plusquellic
    Mayor of Akron, Ohio

    The Honorable William D. “Bill” Euille
    Mayor of Alexandria, Virginia

    The Honorable Denny Doyle
    Mayor of Beaverton, Oregon

    The Honorable Mark Kleinschmidt
    Mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    The Honorable William E. “Bill” Gluba
    Mayor of Davenport, Iowa

    The Honorable T.M. Franklin Cownie
    Des Moines, Iowa

    The Honorable Luigi Boria
    Mayor of Doral, Florida

    The Honorable Roy D. Buol
    Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa

    The Honorable William V. “Bill” Bell
    Mayor of Durham, North Carolina

    The Honorable Salvatore J. Panto, Jr.
    Mayor of Easton, Pennsylvania

    The Honorable Kitty Piercy
    Mayor of Eugene, Oregon

    The Honorable Ed Malloy
    Mayor of Fairfield, Iowa

    The Honorable Joy Cooper
    Mayor of Hallandale Beach, Florida

    The Honorable Alex Morse
    Mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts

    The Honorable Mark Stodola
    Mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas

    The Honorable Paul Soglin
    Mayor of Madison, Wisconsin

    The Honorable McKinley Price
    Mayor of Newport News, Virginia

    The Honorable Chris Koos
    Mayor of Normal, Illinois

    The Honorable Frank Ortis
    Mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida

    The Honorable Michael Brennan
    Mayor of Portland, Maine

    The Honorable Gayle McLaughlin
    Mayor of Richmond, California

    The Honorable Ardell Brede
    Mayor of Rochester, Minnesota

    The Honorable Stephen Cassidy
    Mayor of San Leandro, California

    The Honorable Pam O’Connor
    Mayor of Santa Monica, California

    The Honorable Neil King
    Mayor of Taos Ski Valley, New Mexico

    The Honorable Laurel Lunt Prussing
    Mayor of Urbana, Illinois

    The Honorable Geraldine Muoio
    Mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida

  • The Emotional and Psychological Trauma to Our People Can’t Be Measured In Real Terms

    This article was originally published by the Huffington Post.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands in the northern Pacific Ocean is not only a breathtakingly beautiful island state, but has recently moved into the public eye by starting a bold initiative that is widely interpreted as a “David against Goliath” undertaking.

    The Marshall islands were subjected to dozens of nuclear tests, carried out by the U.S. after 1945.

    According to the Associated Press, the island group filed suit in late April against each of the nine nuclear-armed powers in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. It also filed a federal lawsuit against the United States in San Francisco.

    The Marshall Islands claims that instead of negotiating disarmament, the nine countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, spending $1 trillion on those arsenals over the next ten years.

    “I personally see it as kind of David and Goliath, except that there are no slingshots involved,” David Krieger, president of the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told AP. The Foundation is acting as a consultant in the case and is hoping that other countries will join the legal effort, Krieger points out.

    Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are included in the indictment. The last four are not parties to the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but appear to be, according to the lawsuits, bound by its provisions under “customary international law.” The NPT, considered the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts, requires negotiations among countries in “good faith” on disarmament, AP reports.

    None of the countries had been informed in advance of the lawsuits. The case found broad recognition within the international press.

    The Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, explains in an interview the impact the nuclear tests had and still have for his citizens and what he hopes this lawsuit can achieve for the island state and the world community.

    You grew up on the island of Likiep during the 12-year period when the United States tested 67 atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the atmosphere and under water in the Marshall Islands (1946-1958). What are your memories on the impact these tests had for the island of Likiep and its inhabitants? Environmentally, politically and psychologically?

    tony_debrumMy memories of the tests are a mixture of awe, of fear, and of youthful wonder. We were young, and military representatives were like gods to our communities and so our reactions to the tests as they took place were confused and terrifying. We had no clue as to what was happening to us and to our homelands. Our elders, including my grandfather, tried to stop the tests in petitions and communications to the UN but were not successful. I personally witnessed the injuries to some of our countrymen from Rongelap and to this day cannot recall in words my sense of helplessness and anxiety without severe emotional stress. But for as long as I can remember, the explosions and the bizarre effects that lit up our skies are still a source of pain and anger. How could human beings do this to other humans?

    While in later life many attempts have been made, both in good and bad faith, to reconstruct the impact of the testing on our people, only the physical and environmental effects can be discussed with some confidence. The emotional and psychological trauma to our people, both young and old, cannot be measured in real terms. The pain is real and the uncertainty is overwhelming. As a young lady said to me when showing me pictures of her dead deformed infant child, “God did not create my baby. He cannot be so cruel.”

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands recently filed an extraordinary lawsuit at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, suing all nine nuclear weapons possessors for failing to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. But only three of the nine nuclear states named by the lawsuit generally accept the rulings of the International Court of Justice. What do you hope for the outcome of this case?

    My country has exhausted all means within our limited power to bring attention and closure to our outstanding nuclear issues with our former Administrative Authority, the United States. Mechanisms jointly established for dealing with outstanding claims for physical injury and property damage have fallen way short of satisfying even the basic findings of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal formed under treaty agreements. This is due mostly to the withholding of critical information necessary for us to make informed decisions regarding our nuclear past and our uncertain future. To this day the United States still refuses to release information we have identified and requested under established processes. All the while we have to cope with displaced communities, skyrocketing medical costs, dangerously radioactive environments, and deprivation of use of traditional lands.

    The United States tells us they have satisfied their obligation under the Free Association Compact, a Treaty, and that they will not entertain any claims or requests for meaningful assistance in this issue. In fact, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the cases of the People of Bikini and the People of Enewetak seeking damages for their destroyed homelands. 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 implore the nuclear weapons state to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world. It is the best we can do as collateral damage in the race for nuclear superiority. Our sacrifice will be for naught if the nuclear countries do not stand up and take notice of the evil that nuclear weapons present to our earth.

    Do you think that this case can help to create enough international momentum for the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT) to be treated — due to its near universal adherence — as part of customary international law by which all states must abide, regardless of whether or not they actually signed the treaty?

    We believe that it is sensible and logical for the world community to consider this matter as one of customary international law. To do otherwise is to gamble with the future of the world.

    What effects would that have on the discourse of nuclear disarmament worldwide?

    It should stimulate intelligent discourse and wise solutions. For what would it gain the world for instance, to be protected from climate change, only to suffer massive destruction from nuclear weapons? All our efforts to be sane about the future must be connected to survival and peace. The right hand cannot be out seeking climate peace while the left is busy waging nuclear war.

    Looking at the status quo of this discourse, how do you evaluate the outcome of the recent NPT PrepCom at United Nations’ headquarters in New York City which closed without adopting the Chair’s draft recommendations to the Review Conference?

    The outcome of the recent NPT PrepCom appeared to be more “business as usual,” with the nuclear-armed parties to the treaty essentially evading their Article VI obligations or claiming they were fulfilling them in a step by step manner, while at the same time continuing to modernize their nuclear arsenals and relying upon them in their military strategies. It is clear that the nuclear-armed states are not pursing negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament, as they are obligated to do under Article VI of the treaty.

    You have also been advocating on the issue of climate change, a grave concern that affects not only the Pacific Islands, but has obvious global consequences. Are there linkages between nuclear disarmament and climate change? Considering that both issues climate change, as well as nuclear disarmament are political matters of tremendous significance, which one, in your opinion, has the capacity of being addressed faster by the international community?

    I hit upon this somewhat in question four but clearly one cannot isolate climate change from the other most pressing issue of world security today. They go hand in hand, and must be dealt with in a coordinated and universally accepted pathway. As a country that has seen the ravages of war, suffers the lingering effects of nuclear tests, and facing the onset of a rising sea, we see all these to be threats of equal force against world peace and human life. But finger pointing and challenges of who goes first must now stop and sane and intelligent human beings must confront this insanity with firm confidence and clear peaceful intentions.

  • The Nun Behind Bars in Brooklyn

    You could call it a homecoming of sorts, but without the welcome home party. After growing up in the shadow of Columbia University in Manhattan’s Morningside Heights, serving the Catholic Church as a biology teacher in Africa for more than 40 years, and a peace activist in Nevada, 84-year-old Sister Megan Rice has landed back in New York City. She’s at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn. It’s Sunset Park, but without the grass and trees.

    Transform Now Plowshares

     

    According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Sister Megan in all probability would have served her 35-month prison sentence at Connecticut ‘s Danbury Federal Prison. But female inmates are no longer being housed in that institution. So, Danbury’s loss is Brooklyn’s gain. Sister Megan is one of 78 low security female inmates known as “cadres”. They’re not awaiting trial or transfer. They’ve been convicted and, it appears, will serve their sentences at MDC. Although the prison system classifies this kindly, grandmotherly nun as “low security”, prosecutors described her as a danger to the community during her recent Knoxville trial, and won a conviction for sabotage, which the law defines as a “federal crime of terrorism”.

    In July 2012, Sister Megan, along with two fellow peace activists, carried a Bible, candles, bread and bolt cutters into the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Y-12 processes and stores America’s highly enriched uranium, the material terrorists could use to make a dirty bomb. The facility has enough highly enriched uranium to make 10,000 nuclear bombs. Using bolt cutters the trio sliced through four chain link fences, reaching all the way to the outside walls of the building where the bomb making material is stored, before they were accosted by a single security guard. The guard took one look at Sister Megan, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed and knew immediately they were peace protesters… and it wasn’t just because they offered him bread, instead of brandishing weapons.

    The security breach was a huge embarrassment to the federal government and sent shock waves around the world. After all, other nations send their vulnerable nuclear materials to be stored at Y-12. Several Congressional hearings examined the incident during which a number of lawmakers said America owed a debt of gratitude to Sister Megan for highlighting security flaws at Y-12 that needed to be addressed, and urgently. Nonetheless, the federal government came down hard on the three protesters charging that they had interfered with the national defense. During their trial Y-12’s federal manager, a prosecution witness, said the three damaged the facility’s credibility as the nation’s Fort Knox of uranium.

    The three activists never intended to expose security failings at Y-12, instead their protest action was designed to draw attention to the multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapons industry which, they say, is siphoning off tax payer dollars from real needs like healthcare, education, housing and jobs. The U.S. spends more on nuclear weapons than all the other countries of the world combined and four times more than Russia. Over the next 10 years additional spending is planned as the nation ramps up to modernize its entire nuclear arsenal: submarines, missiles and bombers, at a cost the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be $355 billion. The activists are members of Plowshares an international movement opposed to nuclear weapons, whose mission is the conversion of resources from weapons of mass destruction to that which is life giving and can benefit humanity.

    Since her conviction last year Sister Megan has spent time in a number of prisons in Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and now New York. She told me she ministers to the women by listening to their stories and sharing in the emotional pain. “Clearly these are the most vulnerable people in society. They are those who cannot find the jobs. The jobs are not being created, and many of them, because of that, fall into the drug industry just to survive, to buy diapers for their children. As we know the military budgets are eating up everything and have for so long,” says Sister Megan.

    Besides comforting the women trapped in the system… there are the letters. Sister Megan told me during a recent phone call from MDC Brooklyn that she does not have enough time in the day to attend to the flood of letters that are sent to her. Since she can’t respond to each one individually, she’s enlisted a circle of six friends (one jokingly describes herself as Sr. Megan’s secretary) to disseminate her response letters. Recently this circle sent out 120 letters.

    The letters are a window into her sincere spirit amid the realities of prison life:

    “I could never fully describe the kindness with which a guardian angel guard (male) walked me through “intake” in about 15 minutes, while I ate my baloney and cheese sandwich (brown bread! turkey baloney!) the first meal of the day for me except for two apples given to me by my sister passenger ‘Tiffany’ on the way from Newburgh to Brooklyn.”

    “It’s good to be 84 and the next young thing only about 70, if that! The United Nations is represented among a large population from Brooklyn, Queens, and up-state New York towns-Watertown, Ithaca, and Plattsburg-well represented with one loner from Florence, AZ.”

    From behind bars she continues to follow events in the outside world. And, ever the teacher, in her letters she counsels her supportive community on how best to keep moving forward on the issue closest to her heart:

    “And in the what can we be doing now? category, we can begin by signing the petition at www.nuclearzero.org in support of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which has filed suit in the International Court of Justice and U.S. Federal District Court against the nine nuclear- armed nations for failure to comply with their obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to pursue negotiations for the world wide elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    From 1946 to 1968, the Marshall Islands acted as a testing ground for America’s nuclear weapons program. The U.S. detonated 67 atomic bombs during that time period which is the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for 12 years. Castle Bravo, the largest nuclear bomb ever tested by the U.S., was 1,000 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb. Having experienced firsthand the horrible consequences of nuclear weapons, the small island nation has petitioned the World Court for an injunction to require the nuclear armed states to meet their disarmament obligations as laid out in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under international law. The lawsuit is supported by a number of Nobel Laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Shirin Ebadi and Jody Williams. A global petition is being circulated on line for people to sign in support of the lawsuit.

    Regarding the lawsuit Sister Megan told me, “It’s marvelous news, a David and Goliath story. I really want to be able to sign something… .or if you could sign it for me?”

    Helen Young is producing the documentary “Nuclear Insecurity” on nuclear disarmament activists, including Sister Megan, and the policy experts on the frontlines of the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • U.S. Government Files Official Notice of Appearance

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn May 29, 2014, the United States government filed the required “Notice of Appearance” with the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. on April 24, 2014 for breaches of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Similar lawsuits were filed against all nine nuclear-armed nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) in the International Court of Justice.

    The Notice of Appearance names three lawyers that will be defending the United States in the case in U.S. Federal District Court. They are:

    • Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General
    • Anthony J. Coppolino, Deputy Branch Director
    • Eric R. Womack, U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney

    This filing demonstrates that the United States will indeed be appearing to defend itself and its agencies in court in this unprecedented lawsuit.

    For more information on the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

  • We Must End the Madness of Nuclear Weapons

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsSome five decades ago, world leaders came together on an urgent mission to avert “the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind” in the event of a nuclear war. The five then-existing nuclear weapon states – the United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), United Kingdom, France and China – signed the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They agreed to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

    Five decades later, the nuclear threat has only increased. Four more states – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – now have nuclear weapons. The world is more dangerous because the signatories of the NPT have failed to keep their promises and have undermined the rule of law.

    Until now, no one has held them accountable. Last month, the Republic of the Marshall Islands courageously took the nine nuclear weapons-wielding Goliaths to the International Court of Justice to enforce compliance with the NPT and customary international law.

    This tiny Pacific nation’s firsthand experience with nuclear devastation compelled it to take a stand. The United States exploded 67 nuclear weapons there between 1946 and 1958, including a bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Marshall Islanders still suffer high cancer rates and environmental poisoning as a result. They are not seeking compensation; in fact, their bold stance could potentially jeopardize the essential funding and protection the US provides them. Yet their desire to protect their fellow humans from the pain and devastation wrought by nuclear weapons outweighs fear of retribution.

    Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral because they have only one purpose: to indiscriminately destroy human life at the push of a button, without regard for whether they kill innocents or combatants, children or adults. In 1996, the International Court of Justice warned, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”

    No government, army, organization or individual should have the ability to impose nuclear devastation on other humans. This truth is enshrined in Article VI of the NPT: “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.”

    The five original nuclear weapon states signed onto this statement, but have failed to honor their commitments. The four more recent nuclear weapon states – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – have followed their lead in defying international legal obligations.

    Instead of working to end the insanity of the nuclear age once and for all, these nine countries waste trillions of dollars on their nuclear arsenals, in violation of both the treaty and customary international law. We can no longer afford this perilous game of nuclear roulette. Every day that world leaders delay action on disarmament, they impose the unacceptable menace of nuclear devastation upon every human on the planet.

    Addiction to nuclear weapons costs us all in other ways as well. The price of these weapons keeps rising. The nuclear nations spend a combined $100 billion on them every year. Imagine how far this amount could take us in providing access to education, health care, food and clean water for the people of the world.

    The people of the Marshall Islands are standing up to say that it’s time to end the era of nuclear madness. They are joined by Nobel Peace Laureates, and leaders and experts from every field who support this historic legal action.

    We call on President Obama and the leaders of the other nuclear weapon states to fulfill their legal obligation to negotiate in good faith to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. It is not unrealistic to ask that the world’s most powerful governments start obeying the law and keeping their promises.

    Nothing good has ever come of nuclear weapons. Nothing good ever will. For the sake of all humanity, current and future, it’s time to respect the law and keep the promise.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.