Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: peace

  • Nuclear Disarmament and Deterrence Education

    Introduction


    Early in 2008 I was appointed by the UN Secretary-General to his Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, as the first Australasian in 25 years.  This has been an amazing experience – giving me the opportunity to feed ideas from ordinary citizen groups into the Secretary General, and to debate with Ambassadors of the 5 nuclear weapon states and nine others on this prestigious Board. 


    The issues we have discussed so far have included pathways to nuclear abolition and nuclear deterrence; nuclear energy security; weapons in outer space; the 2010 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; cyber warfare and nanoweapons.


    This month we will look at how to revitalise the Conference on Disarmament in order to implement some of the Secretary General’s Five Point Plan for nuclear disarmament launched during Disarmament Week in October 2008. 
    Ban Ki-Moon’s Points included the following: 



    • All parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially the nuclear-weapon States, should fulfill its requirement to enter into negotiations on nuclear disarmament, which could focus on either a convention or framework of agreements banning nuclear-weapons.

    • The nuclear-weapon States could assure non-nuclear-weapon States that they will not be the subject of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  

    • Existing nuclear arrangements and agreements (e.g. a ban on testing, nuclear-weapon-free zones, and strengthened safeguards) need to be accepted by States and brought into force.

    • The nuclear Powers could also expand the amount of information they publish about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile material, and specific disarmament achievements.  

    • Complementary measures are needed such as the elimination of other types of WMD; new efforts against WMD terrorism; limits on conventional arms; and new weapons bans, including of missiles and space weapons.

    We are fortunate to have a UN Secretary General (UNSG) who is strongly advocating nuclear and general disarmament and has openly criticised nuclear deterrence. His 5 Point Plan has become a great rallying point for citizen groups, diplomats, politicians and Mayors who have come in behind him in his courageous urgently pleas for nuclear abolition.  It has therefore become an important vehicle for nuclear disarmament education.


    Ban Ki-Moon believes that “A world free of nuclear weapons is a global public good of the highest order” and that “…the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is contagious, making non-proliferation more difficult and raising new risks that nuclear weapons will be used.”


    The Secretary General opened the May 2010 NPT Review Conference on a high note, and took a leading role throughout. He gave passionate speeches in both the formal and non-governmental events calling for agreement on a comprehensive programme for nuclear disarmament. He used the opening of the Second Conference of States Parties that established Nuclear Weapon Free Zones by encouraging the diplomats. He said:  My goal – our goal – is to make the whole world a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Nuclear-weapon-free zones are the success stories of the disarmament movement. You are leading by example.


    On the eve of the NPT, he addressed the NGO Disarmament conference at the Riverside Church, where Martin Luther King had given his famous speeches. The crowd of nearly 1000 NGOs gave him 3 standing ovations – including after this rousing finale: “What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons.  What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen. Please keep up your good work. Sound the alarm, keep up the pressure. Ask your leaders what they are doing … personally… to eliminate the nuclear menace. Above all, continue to be the voice of conscience. We will rid the world of nuclear weapons. And when we do it will be because of people like you. The world owes you its gratitude.”


    At our Board meetings we have been encouraging him to speak out and take actions to implement the rhetoric. He has recently:



    • Visited Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Semipalatinsk as the first UNSG to do so;

    • Convened a Nuclear Security Summit and a High level meeting to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament in September 2010;

    • Addressed the Mayors for Peace and the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament Panels at the NPT;

    • Been asked to facilitate a Conference on Middle East zone free of all WMD in 2012;

    • Opened exhibitions promoting disarmament in the UN, eg CTBTO, photo exhibition from Japanese hibakusha; and 

    • Promoted  Disarmament and Non Proliferation Education.

    Last year the Board reviewed the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education which was adopted by consensus in the General Assembly in 2002. The Study requested the Secretary-General to prepare biennial reports to submit to the Assembly.  It was prepared by ten government experts with input from UN international organisations and agencies such as the IAEA, OPCW, UNIDIR, UNESCO, UNICEF, CTBTO, UNIFEM and the UNU.


    The Study included 34 far-reaching recommendations including one which encourages municipal leaders, working with citizen groups, “to establish peace cities, as part of the UNESCO Cities for Peace network, through, for example, the creation of peace museums, peace parks, websites, and production of booklets on peacemakers and peacemaking.”


    This recommendation provides a wonderful opportunity for the fast-growing Mayors for Peace network to declare Peace Cities and educate local citizens and policy makers about nuclear disarmament. The Exhibition organised by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been travelling all over the world – and was recently highlighted during a Press conference with Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange in London. In my own country, it has been shown in sixteen cities, and smaller photos displayed in many schools to mark Peace Week.  There have also been very successful exhibitions on Gandhi and Depleted Uranium munitions.


    The twentieth anniversary of the passing of New Zealand’s historic nuclear free legislation in 2007 provided another opportunity for a major exhibition which showcased iconic peace movement memorabilia and highlighted the arguments challenging nuclear deterrence. The exhibition included the original 1963 petition calling for a Southern Hemisphere nuclear free zone, banners, posters, stickers, badges, photos, magazines, stamps, artwork and music. David Lange’s famous Oxford Union debate –in which he rubbishes nuclear deterrence – was available in the red phone box! There was also memorabilia commemorating the World Court Project which began in Christchurch.


    On the anniversary of the legislation many of our elected representatives from all political parties joined together on the steps of parliament wearing ‘nuclear free nation’ tee shirts and badges. Some of them, including the former Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, had been members of the Peace Squadrons which had taken non-violent direct action in small boats to try and prevent US nuclear powered and probably armed vessels entering New Zealand ports during the mid 1970s and early 1980s. The politicians then returned to Parliament House to pass a unanimous resolution, resolving that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon free world. 


    Mayors for Peace


    The Mayors for Peace movement is led by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1995 they addressed the International Court of Justice to present the views of the nuclear bomb victims of their cities.  Following the World Court Opinion in 1996, which called on all states ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiation on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects’, they were inspired to renew their call for nuclear abolition and begin a membership drive internationally. To mark the 10th anniversary of the Court’s Opinion in 2006, Mayors for Peace launched the Good Faith Challenge reaffirming the meaning and importance of the World Court opinion.


    At the city level, Mayors for Peace has launched the Cities Are Not Targets project. This encourages and assists cities and municipal associations in demanding assurances from nuclear-weapon states that cities are not and will not be targeted for nuclear attack. To quote the Mayors: Cities are homes and offices. They are not legitimate targets for bombs. To obliterate a city for any reason whatsoever is an illegal, immoral crime against humanity and not to be tolerated.


    Membership in Mayors for Peace has grown exponentially in the last few years.  There are now 4,515 members in 150 countries and regions. The 104 capital cities, include the NWS of Russia (34), China (7), France (134), UK (65), India (16), Pakistan (13) and Israel (55). Japan leads with 901 members, the US has 168 members (including Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston) and Australia with 72. The capital cities of key NATO allies such as Germany (371 cities), Belgium (355), Spain (296), Italy (376), Turkey (11), Greece (30), Netherlands (55), Canada (90), Czechoslovakia (28) and Norway (88) are also signed up.  Citizens in these cities and countries have a special responsibility to challenge their local councils to push their governments to reflect public opinion in support of nuclear abolition.


    One of the recommendations of the UN Study on Disarmament Education was to include NGOs (including Mayors) and politicians, on government delegations to UN disarmament conferences.  New Zealand has done this regularly since 1985 and last year included the chair of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament, and a youth worker in our organisation as full members of their delegation to the NPT Review Conference. 


    Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament


    In 2001, the Middle Powers Initiative established the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament. It was recently renamed Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament and has over 780 members in 80 countries.   PNND has a regular newsletter, and the website is available in 12 languages. A few years ago its coordinator, fellow New Zealander Alyn Ware, produced a briefing book on disarmament which was distributed to all PNND and Mayors for Peace members, and all 550 members of the US Congress. This formidable network is now having a strong impact on government disarmament policies in key nuclear allied states where they regularly debate about nuclear deterrence.


    In February 2010 the UNSG, at PNND’s instigation, sent a letter to all parliaments calling for action on his Five Point plan. PNND launched a campaign of support resulting in resolutions being adopted in the European Parliament; the national parliaments of Austria, Bangladesh, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and Norway; and the Inter-Parliamentary Union which represents 152 parliaments (including France, Russia and the United Kingdom). There has also been support from the 3rd World Conference of Speakers of Parliament and a group of Nobel Laureates. Cross party coalitions of politicians in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey have signed a letter to President Obama calling for removal of US tactical nuclear weapons from their soil. 


    Reports to the UN Secretary General on Disarmament Education


    Every two years governments and NGOs report to the UNSG about disarmament education activities in their countries.   In Canada the government has helped fund the extremely popular Reaching Critical Will website coordinated by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and the World Without Weapons website which provides a Teacher’s Guide and Student’s Manual for Secondary School Grades educating youth about disarmament, non-proliferation, landmines, SALW and human security issues.


    Japan supports UN Disarmament Fellowship Programmes for government officials. It has held regional disarmament conferences since 1989 and published a booklet on Disarmament Policy in Japanese and English.


    Sweden, like New Zealand (NZ), gives support to disarmament education (DE) activities by NGOs.  The NZ Ministry of Education distributed a Pamphlet on peace education to every school and the government supports Model UN Assemblies and gives regular briefings to NGOs. The Disarmament Education UN Implementation Fund  helps fund NGOs to implement the Study’s recommendations, such as the creation of Peace Cities, Museum exhibitions, and the production of educational material for schools, politicians and university students. NZ regularly includes NGO advisers on delegations to UN meetings on Landmines, Small Arms and nuclear weapons.  The Peace and Disarmament Education Trust  helps fund post-graduate scholarships for research on disarmament issues.


    The Russian government helps fund academic institutions and NGOs to develop programmes and train specialists in disarmament education. Higher Education institutes have included a new speciality ‘Security and Non Proliferation of nuclear materials’. The PIR centre gives training for experts in relevant government ministries and has developed a manual on nuclear Non Proliferation which has been confirmed as a textbook for tertiary institutions.


    Venezuela is setting up mass literacy campaigns to help prevent international trafficking in small arms and light weapons. Its constitution includes the fundamental values of ‘peace, integration, rejection of war, peaceful dispute settlement and establishing a fairer and more balanced world based on respect for cultural, ethnic and gender diversity.’ Bolivia also has a ‘profound commitment to peace’ arguing that all problems between States should be resolved through dialogue and mutual understanding. Mauritius has no history of war or civil insurrection and does not hold large stocks of arms and ammunitions. 


    Cambodia has introduced a number of activities, laws and regulations such as providing training to technical military staff to enable them to safely control and store weapons and ammunition. It created a national committee on weapons and ammunition in 2006. By May 2008, in collaboration with Japan and EU, they destroyed over 212,735 units of arms.


    Burundi’s Ministry of Defence has established a strict documentation mechanism for the verification and control of legally held small arms.  Qatar created the National Committee for the Prohibition of Weapons which includes a resolution to create and implement programmes to raise awareness of international arms control treaties.


    Spain teaches disarmament education at all levels in the Ministry of Defence and the government regularly participates in seminars, lectures or post-graduate studies on disarmament education with the Spanish Strategic Studies Institute and the Centre for Advanced national Defence Studies.


    UN Agencies


    The revamped UNODA website  has a special section devoted to disarmament education. It links UN agencies focusing on UNDE and some NGO initiatives including films, teacher resources and other publications. 


    The UN CyberSchoolBus site  has been named as one of the 101 best websites for teachers among 25 other complimentary reviews and prestigious awards. It is in 6 languages and is linked to a range of excellent websites such as the Model UN HQ, Peace Education,  and Voices of Youth. It has some examples of games and model units for teachers.


    However one of the main areas where little has been done over the decade is the creation of effective computer and video games which teach non-violence and disarmament.  The interactive media Global Platform aggregate audience of over 550 million has huge educational possibilities especially for youth.  The UN Study recommended (No 18) that ‘efforts should be made by educators, parents and the business community devise and produce toys, computer games and videos that engender such attitudes’ (ie values that reject violence, resolve conflicts peacefully and sustain a culture of peace).


    Youth


    It is exciting to see young people emerging as leaders in disarmament. There were over 500 young people at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.  The NPT-TV was run by the Students Peace Bureau in Germany, and Disarm TV is a youth-led and produced citizen journalism project aimed at empowering young people as grassroots reporters and peer educators on the nuclear weapons issue. There were simulations for negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention, organised by the European youth network Ban all Nukes generation (BANg) and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation (INESAP), held every day which were observed by seasoned diplomats.  


    The Million Pleas video, started by a group of school children from Hiroshima, is addressed to the 9 nuclear weapon states. They are asking people all over the globe to upload a video clip of themselves saying the word “please”. The “pleases” will then be edited into a long virtual chain letter, which will act as a petition to abolish nuclear weapons, worldwide. It is one of the many exciting campaigns being organised by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) based in Australia.


    The International Network of Emerging Nuclear Specialists was established by a group of  young policy specialists concerned that constructive dialogue was largely absent from the ‘nuclear’ debate. They seek to include parties from across these fields and they will facilitate this dialogue.


    In October 2010 the Youth Section of Religions for Peace presented a petition to UN High Representative for Disarmament  calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons – signed by over 20 million people. The petition is part of the Arms Down Campaign for Shared Security, and also calls for a reallocation of 10% of global military spending towards meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015.


    UN Focus


    I would like to finish by giving a couple of other examples of how the United Nations can create a forum and focus for healing, peace and disarmament.  In October 2000, after intense activity by five leading international NGOs working with UNIFEM, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. A landmark victory, this reaffirmed the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations, peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and post-conflict reconstruction. It also stressed the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.  The follow up Security Council resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889, empowered States to include more women in key decision making positions.  Last October the UN organised a ministerial review conference on women, peace and security to mark the 10th anniversary of Resolution 1325.
    UN Days for Peace and Non-Violence are focal points for educating the general public. The UN International Day of Peace, 21 September, is observed annually as a ‘day of global ceasefire and non-violence’. It provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and nations to create practical acts of Peace on a shared date. It also highlights the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001 to 2010. Their website contains many exciting examples of young and old, rich and poor from all difference religions and cultures working together to celebrate peace. 


    Even the UNSG got in on the act using the latest technology to get his message out. On 13 June 2009, he launched a multiplatform campaign under the WMD-We Must Disarm slogan to mark the 100 day countdown to the International Day. He called for governments and citizens to focus on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and used Twitter, Facebook and MySpace to raise awareness particularly among young people. 


    Last year 29 August was named the International Day Against Nuclear Tests   – which gives an opportunity to focus on the ongoing effects of nuclear tests on existing and future generations.  This month the Japanese Peace Boat  hosted nine hibakusha recently appointed by Japan as “Special Communicators for a World Without Nuclear Weapons” together with five Tahitians working on the impact of French nuclear testing, plus five Japanese high school student Peace Ambassadors and four Aboriginal women from uranium mining affected areas in Australia.  The Boat visited Tahiti where the students learned about the ongoing impact of French nuclear testing.


    On 2 October 2009 (UN International Day for Non-Violence and Gandhi’s birthday) the World March for Peace and Non-Violence was launched in New Zealand to mark its position as the country at the top of the Global Peace Index. It attracted thousands of endorsements from former and current Presidents, Prime Ministers, politicians, Mayors, Nobel Laureates, celebrities, musicians, artists and leading NGOs from all over the world. Its colourful website in 30 languages covers the march through 90 countries over six continents in 90 days.  The UNSG met with the group’s leaders because they were promoting his 5 point plan for nuclear disarmament.


    It is my firm belief that education is the key to changing mindsets and mobilising people to take action.  In the past few years we have seen the impact of leadership from the UNSG and retired military and politicians. But still the political will is weak and even Obama, with his fine rhetoric of nuclear abolition, is now saying he may not see nuclear weapons abolished in his lifetime.
    It is indeed encouraging that 140 countries now support the UNSG’s Five Point Plan. However, he felt compelled to issue this challenge to the diplomats and government leaders at the NPT: 


    “…we have a choice: to leave a legacy of fear and inaction, or to act, with vision and courage and leadership…..  we can, and must, do better.”


    I know we can do better. We must keep up the momentum towards nuclear abolition. Whatever Obama thinks, the ordinary people of the world will make it happen in our lifetime. Future grandchildren of mine will be born into a world free of nuclear weapons. Together we can and must achieve this for all of humanity.

  • Ronald Reagan’s Great Dream

    David KriegerOn February 6, 2011, Ronald Reagan would have been 100 years old.  It is worthwhile to recall that this conservative president’s great dream was the abolition of nuclear weapons.  According to his wife, Nancy, “Ronnie had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons.”


    President Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist.  He believed that the only reason to have nuclear weapons was to prevent the then Soviet Union from using theirs.  Understanding this, he asserted in his 1984 State of the Union Address, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”  He continued, “The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.  But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”


    Ronald Reagan regarded nuclear weapons, according to Nancy, as “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”


    In 1986, President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev met for a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland.  In a remarkable quirk of history, the two men shared a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Despite the concerns of their aides, they came close to achieving agreement on this most important of issues.  The sticking point was that President Reagan saw his Strategic Defense Initiative (missile defense) as being essential to the plan, and Gorbachev couldn’t accept this (even though Reagan promised to share the US missile defense system with the then Soviet Union).  Gorbachev wanted missile defense development to be restricted to the laboratory for ten years.  Reagan couldn’t accept this.


    The two leaders came heartbreakingly close to ending the era of nuclear weapons, but in the end they couldn’t achieve their mutual goal.  As a result, nuclear weapons have proliferated and remain a danger to all humanity.  Today, we face the threat of terrorists gaining possession of nuclear weapons, and wreaking massive destruction on the cities of powerful nations.  There can be no doubt that had Reagan and Gorbachev succeeded, the US and the world would be far more secure, and these men would be remembered above all else for this achievement.


    In his book, Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Paul Lettow quotes Reagan as saying, “I know that there are a great many people who are pointing to the unimaginable horror of nuclear war….  [T]o those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say, ‘I’m with you.’”  Lettow also quotes Reagan as stating, “[M]y dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.”


    In the 18th and 19th centuries, individuals struggled for the abolition of slavery because they understood that every man, woman and child has the right to live in freedom.  Through the efforts and persistence of committed individuals like William Wilberforce in Great Britain and Frederick Douglass in the United States, institutionalized slavery was brought to an end, and humanity is better for it.  In today’s world, we confront an issue of even more transcending importance, because nuclear weapons place civilization and the human species itself in danger of annihilation.


    Ronald Reagan was a leader who recognized this, and worked during his presidency for the abolition of these terrible weapons.  He believed, according to Nancy, that “as long as such weapons were around, sooner or later they would be used,” with catastrophic results.  He understood that nuclear weapons themselves are the enemy.


    Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan died before seeing his goal of abolishing nuclear weapons realized.  It is up to those of us still living to complete this job.  It is not a partisan issue, but rather a human issue, one that affects our common future.

  • Next Steps for a Nuclear Weapon-Free World

    “Senate ratification of New START was a small but valuable Christmas present for the world. Its principal value is in helping to stabilise the US-Russia nuclear relationship. However, it does nothing to reduce the threat of nuclear war. For the next ten years, over 1,500 strategic nuclear warheads on each side will remain ready for launch within half an hour, vulnerable to computer malfunction or false warning of attack. As evidence of cyberwarfare grows, this is an unacceptable perpetuation of the Cold War nuclear stand-off, sustained by complacent acceptance of the fallacies of nuclear deterrence. My focus this year, therefore, is to continue to raise awareness of the risks and consequences of nuclear deterrence failure; and to promote safer, more cost-effective strategies to deter aggression and achieve real security for all.”


    — Commander Robert Green, Royal Navy (ret’d), author of Security Without Nuclear Deterrence 


    “Personally I want to focus more on engaging the “persuadable middle.” I thought that the polls that were taken concerning the New START treaty were revealing — the CNN poll said that 73% of Americans favored it.  Opinion Research Corp. put the number at 75%.  Those are landslide numbers.  And if you look at the many, many editorials and op-eds that supported New START in major national publications, they were largely focused on the proposition that the treaty made us safer. The task requires thoughtfulness, dedication, and energy — but I do not think it is daunting.  Primarily, I think it requires finding ways to reach people who are not already convinced.


    “The problem, of course, is that the “red meat” arguments that energize the progressives (decrying American imperialism, bemoaning the evil military/industrial complex, reasserting the incredible immorality of nuclear weapons …) turn off the persuadable middle, and more temperate arguments that might appeal to the middle are scorned by the militant progressives.


    “But the New START treaty did — at the very end — catch the public’s attention, and revealed that people really do want to get rid of the nuclear threat. I think that the goal for 2011 should be to build on that basic public support and to drive home the message that we as a nation are safer and more secure if these weapons can be controlled and ultimately eliminated world wide.”


    — Richard Duda, founding member of the NAPF Silicon Valley Chapter


    “1. The movement needs to agree on a common theme, and a compelling narrative. The right certainly works that angle, with “death tax”, “death panels”, “nuclear umbrella”, “nuclear deterrent” (see my blog, and your video The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence also hits that point), and more. Maybe something like:


    Bloated nuclear arsenals are the greatest cause of our national insecurity.
    or
    Nuclear weapons are the greatest cause of our national insecurity.
    or
    A newborn child has at least a 10% risk of being killed by nuclear weapons.


    A US In the World Report has some thoughts along these lines, especially about the language of risk.


    “2. Getting society to reexamine the fallacious assumptions that have led us to the current crazy situation. So long as American policy is based on false premises, arms control, much less nuclear disarmament, will proceed at best in fits and starts. A critical first step is to root out the myths that cause us to take actions that are against our own best interests. I list 11 possible candidates in one of my course handouts, and there are many others. Getting consensus within the movement on which are most important, and then focusing our communal effort on those would be a big plus.


    “3. Forming what I am calling pockets of nuclear awareness. Until people are aware, little of real import will happen. (The New START was only important in that rejection would have been a big setback. It is, at best, a baby step forward.) And people are social animals who require others around them to be thinking the same way or they tend to lose interest. This is explained on my web page.”


    — Martin Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University and founding member of the NAPF Silicon Valley Chapter.


    “Treaties for the people, for the planet, are hard to come by because the politicians, owned and controlled by the non-people, the corporate glob, must ratify the same.  Thus the steps are too painfully slow to save us and the world we live in.  It is like nailing the occupant of a burning house to the wall, and then, some passer-by comes along and pulls out one of the hundreds of nails.  And they would call that a treaty.  The house is still burning.”


    — Gerry Spence, trial lawyer and author


    “I think that now that the two major possessors of nuclear weapons have taken this step in the right direction, the focus on stopping the acquisition of these weapons by other nations is critical. As you know, not just Iran, but Jordan, the Saudis, etc. want to or are already moving forward in the nuclear area, which is very worrisome for a myriad of reasons.”


    — Riane Eisler, author, social scientist and lawyer


    “Although most people, if asked directly, will say that they favor the abolition of nuclear weapons, very few have any real idea of the threat which existing nuclear arsenals pose to humans and other complex forms of life.  In fact, here in the U.S., most people do not even know that immense nuclear arsenals still exist, that  their own nation (and Russia) have 95% of the 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and that they keep 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons ready to launch with only a few minutes warning.  They have no idea that just one of these weapons can instantly ignite tens or hundreds of square miles of the Earth’s surface into a gigantic nuclear firestorm, and that a hundred such firestorms could produce enough smoke to cause deadly climate change, leading to global nuclear famine.


    “An uniformed public cannot make informed decisions.  We are still conducting our political discussions about nuclear weapons in Cold War terms, focusing upon how we are “behind” if we don’t “modernize” our nuclear arsenal, that we are “locked into a position of permanent inferiority” by agreements with the Russians to limit our nuclear weapons.  There is absolutely no discussion of the consequences of the use of existing arsenals, particularly those maintained by the US and Russia, the dialogue is dangerously out of touch with the peer-reviewed scientific predictions that *any* nuclear conflict which detonates as little as 1% of existing nuclear arsenals in cities will likely kill at least 1 billion people through nuclear famine. We must bring current scientific understandings of what nuclear war would do to the biosphere, agriculture, ecosystems and global climate into the active debate about the need for nuclear weaponry.


    “Furthermore, In a time when we cannot find enough money to maintain our schools, highways, hospitals and basic infrastructure, do we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our nuclear weapons manufacturing complex and “upgrade” nuclear weapons systems? No, just the opposite, we need stop or prevent funding for such projects, which guarantee that there will be no “world without nuclear weapons.”  I am going to start ending my presentations with a chart which shows what we could do with the endless billions we spend on nuclear weaponry, something like what Eisenhower did with his “Cross of Iron” speech.  We have to give concrete examples of what could be immediately gained through the elimination of insane spending for nuclear doomsday machines. We can combat the idea that nuclear spending creates jobs by giving examples of what could be done to construct, for example, needed alternative energy systems (wind, solar, tidal, etc.) that can begin rebuilding our own industrial infrastructure, which has been dismantled and shipped overseas.


    “If we are going to get into a race with other nations, let it be a race towards a better human future.  Building nuclear weapons does just the opposite, it paves the way for mass extinction of complex forms of life, including human life.”


    — Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility

  • Forty Reasons to End War

    David KriegerThe brutality.


    The children.


    The deaths of civilians.


    The dreams destroyed.


    The hand-to-hand combat.


    The herd mentality.


    The high altitude bombing.


    The horror.


    The apathy.


    The ignorance.


    The indecency.


    The jingoism.


    The land mines.


    The defoliants.


    The lies. 


    The long distance killing machines.


    The loss of life.


    The loss of limbs.


    The loss of compassion.


    The madness.


    The manipulation.


    The mothers.


    The mushroom cloud.


    The needless slaughter.


    The patriotic songs.


    The pious politicians.


    The profiteers.


    The propaganda.


    The refugees.


    The ruined lives.


    The smart bombs.


    The stereotyping.


    The stupidity.


    The suffering.


    The suppression of reason.


    The toll on our souls.


    The trauma.


    The medals dripping from the chests of generals.


    The rewriting of history.


    The waste, the terrible waste.

  • Remembering Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

    President Eisenhower's farewell addressJanuary 17, 2011 marked the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the nation in which he warned of the dangers of the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex.  I think he would be shocked to see how this influence has grown over the past half century and how it has manifested in the country’s immense military budgets, the nuclear arms race, our permanent war footing, the failure to achieve meaningful disarmament, and the illegal wars the US has initiated.  In addition to all of this, there is the influence of the military-industrial complex on the media, academia, the Congress and the citizenry.  It has also ensnared US allies, like those in NATO, in its net.  Eisenhower believed that the only way to assure that the military-industrial complex can be meshed “with our peaceful methods and goals” is through “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.”


    Eisenhower was 70 years old when his term as president came to an end.  He had been a General of the Army and hero of World War II, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, and for eight years the president of the United States.  His Farewell Address was, above all else, a warning to his fellow Americans.  He stated, “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.”  He worried about what this conjunction would mean in the future, famously stating, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for misplaced power exists and will persist.”


    Eisenhower feared that this powerful complex would weaken democracy.  “We must never,” he said, “let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”  He felt there was only one force that could control this powerful military-industrial complex, and that was the power of the people.  In Eisenhower’s view it was only “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” that was capable of defending the republic “so that security and liberty prosper together.”


    What kind of report card would President Eisenhower give our country today if he could come back and observe what has transpired over the past 50 years?  For starters, I believe he would be appalled by the enormous increase in influence of the military-industrial complex.  Today the military receives over half of the discretionary funds that Congress allocates, over $500 billion a year for the Department of Defense, plus the special allocations for the two wars in which the country is currently engaged.  The Department of Defense budget does not take into account the interest on the national debt attributable to past wars, or the tens of billions of dollars in the Energy Department budget for nuclear arms, or the funds allocated for veterans benefits.  When it is totaled, the US is spending over a trillion dollars annually on “defense.”


    Surely Eisenhower would be dismayed to see how many national institutions have been drawn into and made subservient to the military-industrial complex, which some would now refer to as the military-industrial-Congressional-academic-media complex.  Every district in Congress seems to have links to the complex through jobs provided by defense contractors, putting pressure on Congressional representatives to assure that public funds flow to private defense contractors.  At the same time, academia and the mainstream media provide support and cover to keep public funds flowing for wars and their preparations.


    Near the end of his speech, Eisenhower lamented that he had not made greater progress toward disarmament during his time in office.  He said, “Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.”  It was true then, and remains so today.  He continued, “Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.  Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment.”  Indeed, there was reason for his disappointment, since the number of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal increased under his watch from approximately 1,400 in 1953 to over 20,000 in 1960.  I suspect that he would be even more disappointed today to find that the US has not been more proactive in leading the way toward disarmament and particularly nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War.


    Fifty years ago, Eisenhower feared the threat that nuclear war posed to the world and to our country, and expressed his desire for peace: “As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.”  He recognized that much remains to be done to “reach the goal of peace with justice.”  That was true when Eisenhower made his Farewell Address and it remains true today.


    We would do well to reflect upon the deeply felt concerns of this military and political leader as he retired from public service.  He prayed “that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”  That was his vision, and he passed the baton to us to overcome the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex.   Our challenge is to exercise our power as citizens of a democracy and to use that power to attain a more peaceful and nuclear weapons-free world.

  • The Legacy of Christina Taylor Green

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    Ruben ArvizuWhen Jared Lee Loughner cowardly shot a group of people gathered exercising a fundamental act of democracy, his mission was to cause death, havoc and dismay.  Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was conducting an open dialogue with her constituents outside a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona, when she was gravely wounded and remains in stable but critical condition. There were 11 other people gravely wounded.


    The list of dead includes John M. Roll, a respected federal judge, Dorwin Stoddard who shielded his wife, Mavanell, with his own body, Phyllis Schnell, a widow and great-grandmother,  Gabe Zimmerman,  Congresswoman Gifford’s assistant director of community outreach, who was 30 years old and engaged to be married,  Dorothy Morris, a lady of 76 years. And Christina Taylor Green, only nine years old.


    Christina’s passage through life was short, yet full of enormous significance, as exemplified by her optimism, her joy for life, nature, her love for family, friends and her interest in learning how to better serve her country. Christina went to the Gifford event to learn more about the political process.


    Being one of the 50 babies born on the day of the fateful 9/11/2001 featured in the book Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11, she and those other babies represent a glimmer of hope after one of the most tragic events in U.S. history.  She knew the meaning of being born on a date that marked a radical change in politics and international relationships. Her desire to learn how to conduct a democratic life led her to be a member of the student council and became a leader in her school, Mesa Verde Elementary. Her parents have said she wanted to eliminate hatreds and prejudices that divide us rather than unite us. Her life, as defined by her father, John Green,  “she was vibrant,  she was the best daughter in the world, and beautiful in her nine years of existence.”


    Christina was part of the new generation born in this 21st century that could  lead us towards a path to make urgent changes we need in a society increasingly apathetic and selfish.


    We at NAPF firmly believe that being free of nuclear weapons is the primary mission to safeguard the human race, and we pay a humble tribute to this lovely little girl filled with love for her family and all who were fortunate enough to know her. Her legacy should be a positive example for all of us who live now and for future generations.

  • Nuclear Weapons: The Goal is Zero

    David KriegerNuclear weapons release vast amounts of energy.  They do this by breaking apart the bonds of the atom, but this is not all they break apart.  They also break apart the bonds of our relationships with the Earth, with other forms of life and with the future.  This is part of the nuclear fallout that occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has continued through the Nuclear Age.


    Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, as was demonstrated by the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  We know that the destructive capacity of these weapons does not end there.  They are also capable of destroying countries and civilization as we know it.  The philosopher John Somerville coined the term “omnicide” to describe the potential destructive capacity of nuclear weapons – the death of all.  In the Nuclear Age, our destructive capacity has moved from homicide to genocide to omnicide. 


    In considering the fallout of nuclear weapons, we might ask: what have these weapons done to our psyches?  The destructive potential of our nuclear inventions transcends the death of an individual or group and shows us a glimpse of the death of all.  For those of us willing to look, this is a fearful view into the abyss, a darkened world of incineration and shadows, a world barren of life.  Although nuclear weapons bring us close to the precipice of such a world, most of us choose to avert our eyes and our minds from grasping the reality.  We gamble the human future on the judgment and human fallibility of political and military leaders.  This strikes me as a very bad bet. 


    It is argued that no weapon ever created has been discarded until another, more powerful weapon has taken its place.  But with nuclear weapons we do not have this luxury.  Nuclear weapons force us to put aside our childish and tribal ways of solving conflicts.  They push us to higher levels of maturity.  We cannot continue our old ways and survive in a nuclear-armed world. 


    Ten Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons


    Let me share with you ten reasons to abolish nuclear weapons:


    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.


    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 


    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.


    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, and William Leahy. 


    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 


    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  


    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 


    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.


    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.


    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 


    New START


    In December 2010, the US Senate voted 71-26 to ratify the New START agreement with Russia.  It was a struggle to obtain the requisite two-thirds majority of the Senate needed for ratification, but in the end enough Republicans joined with the Democrats to assure the treaty’s ratification.  With previous strategic arms reduction treaties, however, the votes for ratification were largely bipartisan, reflected by overwhelming majorities. 


    The New START agreement was described by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, as “vital to national security.”  The treaty has four important benefits. 


    First, it will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 by the year 2017.  This is about a one-third reduction from the 2,200 agreed to in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).  However, there are some accounting irregularities that were agreed to in New START, such as counting each bomber plane as having one nuclear weapon even though it could carry up to 20. 


    Second, it will reduce the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons to 800 total, with an upper limit of 700 of these deployed. 


    Third, it will put inspectors back on the ground in both countries to verify compliance with the treaty.  There have been no inspections since December 2009, when the START I agreement expired. 


    Finally, it will hopefully keep the US and Russia moving forward on reducing their arsenals still further in the years to come.  A failure to ratify the New START agreement would have been disastrous for US-Russia cooperation.


    Despite the important benefits of the treaty, however, it should not be forgotten that it still leaves the US and Russia with 1,550 deployed strategic weapons each, more than enough to destroy the world many times over.  It also does not place limits on the shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons or the strategic nuclear weapons held in reserve.  These issues will be on the agenda of future US-Russia negotiations.


    There was also a heavy price pledged by President Obama for obtaining Republican votes for the treaty, approximately $185 billion over the next ten years.  About $85 billion will go to the modernization of the nuclear infrastructure in the country and the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal.  Another $100 billion will go to improving the delivery vehicles to carry the nuclear weapons.  These expensive improvements to US nuclear forces cast reasonable doubt on the seriousness of the US commitment to nuclear disarmament.


    The Republicans were also able to extract a promise from President Obama regarding missile defenses.  As a candidate for President in October 2007, Obama said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”  In an effort to get the New START agreement ratified, President Obama wrote in December 2010 to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “…as long as I am President, and as long as the Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners.”  Candidate Obama had it right that missile defense systems were “unproven.”  President Obama had it wrong that such systems are “effective.”  In recent months, two missile defense tests from Vandenberg Air Force base have been admitted failures with no intercepts, and these were simple tests without multiple attack missiles or decoys.


    New START is only what it says – a start.  The only stable number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero, and this must be our goal.  The way to get to zero is through a negotiated Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  A Nuclear Weapons Convention will require leadership from the US and other countries.  Leaders must be pushed from below.  In effect, the people must lead their leaders.  Achieving the goal of Zero must start with each of us.


    Implementing Change


    The path to achieving change in the Nuclear Age starts with the implementation of some traditional means for bringing about change: conscience, compassion, courage, cooperation, creativity and commitment.  


    Conscience is the voice inside that distinguishes right from wrong, and moves us to take action for what is right.  It is a capacity that is uniquely human.  We can recognize right from wrong and choose our course.  With conscience there is always choice.


    Compassion is the force of love put into action.  Along with poet John Donne, we must recognize that we are “a part of the continent, a piece of the main.”  We must care for the Earth and all its inhabitants.  Compassion does not recognize borders.  We all share a common Earth.  We are all created equal.  We are all diminished by nuclear threats or any other threats to the well-being of people anywhere. 


    It takes courage to think differently, to break away from the group-think of the tribe.  It takes courage to express compassion and to embrace the world.  It takes courage to wage peace rather than war. 


    Cooperation is needed to solve the world’s great problems.  There is no significant global problem – war, abuses of human rights, environmental degradation, climate change, nuclear threat – that can be solved by any one nation alone.  It takes not only a village, but a world to bring about the changes that are needed.


    Creativity is also essential to change.  It will take new and creative ways of thinking to prevent the ultimate catastrophe to ourselves and our fellow inhabitants of Earth.  Einstein said prophetically, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  We must change our modes of thinking, and replace the old patterns with new ones.  We must become world citizens and peace leaders.


    Commitment will keep you going when the goal seems distant and the obstacles seem overwhelming.  No great goal is easy to attain, but some goals – and I would place the abolition of nuclear weapons among these – are challenges that cannot be ignored or cast aside.  The future, which cannot speak for itself and has only our voice, deserves our commitment.

  • A Silly Dream?

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    David KriegerA note recently came to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation that said: “Are you folks out of your minds?  The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in.  Shortly even non-state actors will have nukes!  Quit wasting your time on this silly dream.”  The author of the note, to his credit, signed his name, and also indicated that he is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel. 


    The colonel poses a critical question: Are we out of our minds to believe that change is possible and that humans might find a way to cooperate to eliminate the existential threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity (and other forms of life)?  Perhaps we are, but it seems to me that the future of civilization, the human species and other complex forms of life are worth the effort.  The Nuclear Age is distinct from the periods that preceded it in having the capacity to end most complex life, including human life, on the planet.  Fighting for the elimination of nuclear weapons is also the fight for human survival and for the rights of future generations.  I’ve always believed that we have a choice: nuclear weapons or a human future.  Along with the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe it is unlikely that both are possible.


    Next, the colonel asserts that “[t]he nuclear genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in.”  I suppose this means that the knowledge of how to create nuclear weapons exists and cannot be erased.  Granted, the knowledge now exists.  The challenge is whether countries will choose to eliminate nuclear weapons in their common interest, or whether they will be paralyzed by fear into failing to try.  Knowledge alone is not sufficient to make nuclear weapons.  Scientific and engineering skills are also needed, as are nuclear materials.  There may not be a foolproof method to assure the elimination of nuclear weapons, but there is also no foolproof method to assure that existing nuclear weapons will not be used in a nuclear war that could kill billions of people and destroy civilization. 


    The question is: which is a safer path for humanity?  On the one hand, to seek the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons and effective international safeguards on nuclear materials; or, on the other hand, to continue the status quo of having the world divided into a small but increasing number of nuclear “haves” and a far larger number of nuclear “have-nots”?  I would place my bet on working for the elimination of the weapons, the same path chosen by Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Ronald Reagan.  According to his wife, Nancy, President Reagan “had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons.” 


    The colonel seems to like the odds of continuing with the status quo, even though he recognizes that “[s]hortly even non-state actors will have nukes!”  This is most likely true and it poses an enormous problem for the US and other nuclear armed countries, if we fail to bring nuclear weapons and the materials to make them under strict and effective international control.  All of the thousands of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal can’t deter a terrorist organization in possession of a single nuclear weapon.  You can’t credibly threaten retaliation against an organization or individuals that you can’t even locate.


    “Quit wasting your time,” the colonel admonishes, “on this silly dream.”  But all dreams may seem silly before they are realized.  Mohandas Gandhi had a dream of an independent India.   It must have seemed silly to Winston Churchill and other British leaders at the time.  Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream of racial equality.  Perhaps it seemed silly to many.  Nelson Mandela dreamed of an end to apartheid in South Africa.  During his 27 years in prison, this dream must have seemed silly to the white power structure in South Africa. 


    There are dreams of justice and equality that must seem silly to many.  There are dreams of alleviating poverty and hunger, and dreams of educational opportunity for all children.  There are even dreams of eliminating war.  It is not silly to fight for a better future, and certainly not silly to fight to assure the future itself. 


    For me, a New Year is a new beginning and always brings hope.  I will continue to choose hope and to fight for the dream of peace and the elimination of nuclear weapons.  Achieving these goals is the great challenge of our time, and on their success depend the realization of all other goals for a more just and decent world.

  • A Seat at Humanity’s Table

    Frank Kelly“Everyone deserves a seat at humanity’s table.”  That was a favorite expression of my friend Frank Kelly, who died in 2010, one day before his 96th birthday.  Frank believed it was essential for a peaceful future that everyone be seated at that big table and everyone’s voice be heard.  I couldn’t agree more.  We need a table that has room for all of us, a table at which everyone is fed with opportunity; everyone’s human rights are upheld; and everyone has a chance for their voice to be heard. 


    Right now there aren’t enough seats at the table, and the seats that exist have been taken by the wealthy and dominant of the world.  But who should speak for humanity?  Should it be the G-8 or the G-20?  Should it be the P-5, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the ones who reserved for themselves the privilege of the veto power?  Should it be corporate titans?  Should it be representatives of the military-industrial complex?  These are the people who have claimed the seats at humanity’s table for themselves, and they seem quite content sitting there, hoarding resources and opportunity, and pulling the strings of the world.  But all is not well. 


    The rich and powerful may not yet recognize it, but they are sitting on a precipice, and they have a long way to fall.  The table where they are sitting is not stable.  They may believe that they can maintain their exclusive control of the table by using their wealth and power to bring in the police to cordon off the area, but this is only a temporary fix.  Unless they open the doors and expand the table, they are headed for a fall.  And with them is likely to go the table and all the resources they have sought to maintain for their exclusive use.


    To bring everyone to humanity’s table is not just the polite thing to do, it is the right thing to do.  It is also necessary.  The poor of the world know what is going on behind locked doors.  They know that their poverty and suffering are related to the greed at the restricted table.  All that those without a seat at the table are asking for is a chance to be heard and to be part of the decision making about the great problems confronting humanity, including the inequitable allocation of resources, the militarization of the planet, the destruction of the environment, the abuse of human rights, and the list goes on.  All of these great global issues can only be effectively addressed by global cooperation, and such cooperation is not possible if chairs are missing from humanity’s table. 


    It is increasingly evident that either everyone will be seated, or at least represented at the table, or the table will become increasingly irrelevant to solving the world’s problems.  The world has become too small to treat as a country club and put up “No Trespassing” signs to keep most of the world’s people away from humanity’s table.  We’ll either find a way to make room for all of us at the table, or we will fail in achieving the cooperation needed to solve the world’s most pressing problems.

  • Changing the Climate of Complacency

    David KriegerRepresentatives of governments and civil society organizations are gathered in Cancun to take action on the climate change that is threatening our beautiful but beleaguered planet.  The changes, which are resulting in global warming, pose extremely dangerous threats to quality of life and even survival for people today and in the future.  We must heed the warnings of scientists who are examining this phenomenon and change our habits with regard to fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions.  We must dramatically lower our fossil fuel consumption and our carbon imprint on the planet and this must be undertaken immediately and seriously by the over-industrialized nations that are the worst energy and resource abusers.


    There is another way in which the term “climate change” may be used.  That is, to refer to “climate” in the sense of “ambiance.”  There is a strong need to change the climate of our thinking, specifically the passive acceptance of the abuse of our planet and its myriad species, including our own.  In this sense, humanity lives far too much in a “climate” of ignorance and indifference.  We have organized ourselves into consumer societies that demonstrate little concern for our responsibilities to the planet, to each other and to the future.


    There are many ongoing problems in the world that deserve our awareness and engagement.  The fact that these problems receive insufficient attention and action speak to the change of climate that is needed.  Many of these problems were identified in the eight Millennium Development Goals: eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality; reducing child mortality; reducing maternal mortality; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and establishing a global partnership for development. 


    While these major problems on our planet are not adequately addressed, the world is wasting more than $1.5 trillion annually on its military establishments.  Many states are attempting to create military security at the expense of human security.  The poor people on the planet are being marginalized while countries use their scientific resources and material wealth to produce ever more deadly and destructive armaments.  In a climate of complacency, the military-industrial complexes of the world fulfill their gluttonous appetites while the poor and politically powerless of the Earth are left to suffer and die. 


    At the apex of the global order, the countries that emerged victorious in World War II anointed themselves as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.  They continue to flaunt international law by their reliance upon nuclear weapons and by failing to engage in good-faith negotiations for the elimination of these weapons as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Because these countries behave as though their power and prestige are built upon these weapons of mass annihilation, other countries seek to emulate them.  Nuclear proliferation is thus encouraged by the very states that seek to set themselves apart with these weapons.


    Large corporations that stand to profit from a “renaissance” of nuclear power are promoting large nuclear energy projects as an alternative to using fossil fuels.  They are trying to make nuclear power appear to be green.  But they have not solved the four major problems with nuclear power: the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation; the failure to find any reasonable solution to storing the nuclear wastes, which will threaten the environment and humanity for tens of thousands of years; vulnerability to terrorism; and propensity to dangerous accidents. 


    If the large global corporations have their way, the Earth will become home for thousands of nuclear power plants, nations will seek to protect themselves with nuclear weapons (an impossibility), the threat of nuclear annihilation and global warming will continue to hang over our collective heads, extreme poverty in its many manifestations will persist, and we will follow either a slow path to extinction or a rapid one. 


    This is why we must change the climate of indifference and complacency that currently prevails upon our planet.  We humans have the gifts of consciousness and conscience, but these gifts must be used to be effective.  We must become conscious of what threatens our common future and we must care enough to demand that these threats be eliminated.  The only force powerful enough to challenge the corporate and military power that is leading us to catastrophe is the power of an engaged global citizenry.  This remains the one truly great superpower on Earth, but it can only be activated by compassion and caring. 


    If we do not care enough about the future to engage in the fight to save our species from catastrophe and our planet from omnicide, we need only to continue our complacency and leave the important decisions about protecting the environment and human life to powerful corporations and the world’s militaries.  They have a plan, one based upon dangerous technologies and plunder.  Their plan is shortsighted, designed to further enrich the already overly rich.  To be silent is a vote for their plan. 


    As Albert Camus, the great French writer and existentialist, wrote in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing: “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging.  This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.” 


    Let us stand with Camus in waging peace.  Let us stand with Camus in choosing reason.  Let us raise our voices and choose peace and a human future.  Let us fulfill the responsibility of each generation to pass the world on intact to the next generation.  We may be the only generation that has faced the choice of silence and annihilation, or engagement and rebuilding the paradise of our exceedingly precious planet, the only one we know of in the universe that supports life.