Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: peace

  • Imagine

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” — Albert Einstein

    “Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.” — John Lennon

    Imagine there are still 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, over 15 years after the end of the Cold War.

    Imagine that 12,000 of these weapons are deployed, and that 3,500 of them are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in a matter of moments.

    Imagine that the use of a single nuclear weapon could destroy a city, and the use of a small number could destroy civilization.

    Imagine the horror and devastation of Hiroshima, and multiply it by every city and country on earth.

    Imagine that a nuclear war could end human life on our planet, and that the capacity to initiate a nuclear war rests in the hands of only a small number of men.

    Imagine that nuclear weapons threaten the future of humanity and all life.

    Imagine that nuclear weapons challenge as never before our capacity to control violence and live peacefully.

    Imagine that we are not helpless in the face of this threat, and that we can rise to the challenge of ending the nuclear weapons era.

    Imagine that together we can make a difference and that you are needed to create a nuclear weapons free world.

    Imagine a world without the threat of nuclear devastation, a world that you helped to create.

  • Jakob von Uexkull Speaks on Humanity’s Future

    Jakob von Uexkull, a former member of the European Parliament, recently delivered the 6th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future in Santa Barbara, California. The lecture series, a project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, honors Frank K. Kelly, a founder and Senior Vice President of the Foundation.

    The lecture series was created in the belief that humanity’s future deserves our consideration and best thinking. Our future today is imperiled by the power of human-created technologies that threaten civilization and even human survival on the planet. Those who will inhabit the future deserve our advocacy and our stewardship of the planet. Those alive today have no right to threaten the future of humanity by depleting or seriously diminishing the resources of the planet or by destroying the environment of those who will follow. Rather, we have a moral responsibility to preserve the planet and to pass it on intact to future generations.

    Jakob von Uexkull was born in Sweden and currently resides in London. He is one of the world’s leading visionaries, and is a man who has acted upon his vision to create a better world. Understanding the power of the Nobel Prizes, he went to the Nobel Foundation over 25 years ago with a proposal to add two new categories to their award prizes: one for protecting the environment and one for alleviating poverty. He even offered to raise the funds to support these awards.

    After consideration, the Nobel Foundation, which had added only one new award to the initial awards, said no to his request. Von Uexkull then decided to move forward on his own with these new awards, which he named the Right Livelihood Awards (www.rightlivelihood.org). He funded the first awards with the sale of his stamp collection. The first awards were presented in Stockholm on December 9, 1980, the day before the presentation of the Nobel Prizes.

    At first, the Swedish press questioned whether von Uexkull was working for the CIA or the KGB in seeking to undermine the Nobel Prizes. The next year the press ridiculed the awards. But within five years, the awards were being presented in the Swedish Parliament and soon became known as the “Alternative Nobel Prizes.”

    The Right Livelihood Awards have now been presented for more than 25 years, and each year three or four recipients of the Award split a prize of approximately $250,000. Awards have been made to more than 100 leaders throughout the world who are working in the areas of environmental protection and sustainability, development and poverty alleviation, peace and human rights.

    The overwhelming majority of Nobel Prizes go to American and European men, with countries in the southern hemisphere having received only 11 percent of the Nobel Prizes. By contrast, 44 percent of the Right Livelihood Awards have been made to groups and individuals in the Global South. Women have received only five percent of the Nobel Prizes, whereas women, including women-led organizations, have received 34 percent of the Right Livelihood Awards.

    Von Uexkull’s latest innovative project is the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org) . The purpose of the Council is to bring together wise elders, pioneers and youth leaders to be a voice for shared human values and for fulfilling our responsibilities to future generations. The Council will recommend best practices to ensure a positive future for humanity. The first meeting of the Council will take place in Hamburg, Germany in May 2007.

    The title of von Uexkull’s Kelly Lecture is “Globalization: Values, Responsibility and Global Justice.” It will be posted on the Foundation’s www.wagingpeace.org website. A DVD of the talk will also be available from the Foundation. Previous Kelly Lectures on Humanity’s Future by Frank K. Kelly, Richard Falk, Anita Roddick, Robert Jay Lifton and Mairead Maguire can also be found at the www.wagingpeace.org website.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Arthur N.R. Robinson and the Power of One

    I believe in the Power of One, the capacity of a single individual to make an important difference in our world. In many ways, this may seem like an article of faith, rooted in hope. But, in fact, it is more than an article of faith, for there are indeed individuals whose lives have made a significant difference in improving our world. One such individual is Arthur N.R. Robinson, who has served as both Prime Minister and President of his country. He has had a remarkable and charmed life, and he has altered the course of history by his extraordinary leadership in the creation of an International Criminal Court.

    In the 1980s, I became a supporter of the creation of an International Criminal Court, having been introduced to the idea by Robert Woetzel, a man who was also a close and long-time friend of President Robinson. I made many trips to the United Nations to encourage progress on this lofty idea of creating a court that would follow in the Nuremberg tradition of holding individual leaders to account for the commission of heinous crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although it was clear that this was a much needed innovation to the international system of institutions, it seemed quite unlikely at that time that it would be possible to gain the requisite international support for this bold conception.

    And yet, by 1998, the countries of the world gathered in Rome and established a Treaty to create this new Court, a court that would give life to the Principles of Nuremberg as we moved into a new century. It is certain that this essential innovation in international institution building could not have occurred were it not for a single individual, Arthur N.R. Robinson, who as the Prime Minister of Trinadad and Tobago put the United Nations on track to achieve this goal. Of course, many other people played important roles as well, but without this head of government taking bold action to put the matter on the agenda of the United Nations it could not have happened.

    Some people believe that only the big and powerful countries can influence the international system and the course of history. They are wrong. Trinidad and Tobago, under the leadership of a man of vision and determination, led the way to the establishment of an International Criminal Court, an institution that holds the promise of restoring integrity to world affairs. President Robinson and Trinidad and Tobago should be justly proud of what they have accomplished. By this effort and accomplishment Trinidad and Tobago has earned a vaulted place on the international map.

    A.N.R. Robinson, even as he enters his ninth decade of life, has not chosen to rest upon his laurels, as much as he may deserve to do so. Rather, he has recently accepted the responsibility to join the distinguished five-member Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims of International Crime, and in that capacity he continues to play an important role in working for justice in the international system.

    I wonder if the people of Trinidad and Tobago recognize how significant their contribution to building this new international institution has been. Perhaps they appreciate President Robinson’s efforts, but do they embrace these efforts with a sense of national pride? And, most important, do they join in the commitment to strengthening the structure of international criminal law so that the world may be spared future aggressive wars, genocides and crimes against humanity by having in place a mechanism to hold individual leaders to account for the commission of such crimes?

    There remains an important role for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to play on this issue – both at the government level and also at the level of civil society – that is so critical for humanity’s future. I hope that the government of Trinidad and Tobago will not give up its efforts to further the system of international criminal justice represented by the International Criminal Court. Perhaps, though, the government of this country, like most governments, will need a push from below, from its citizens, if it is to rise to a higher plane.

    I would like to propose that citizens of Trinidad and Tobago create a civil society organization that will provide creative ideas and assert public pressure for strengthening the International Criminal Court. The work of such a civil society organization could connect with the United Nations and with like-minded citizens throughout the world. It could carry forward the vision of A.N.R. Robinson and build upon his work. And I would hope that for many years to come he would be a wise and patient mentor to the youthful participants in such an organization.

    There is much still to be done. Sadly, I must recognize that my country, a country of enormous economic and military power but presently lacking a sound moral foundation, has refused to join the International Criminal Court and has actively opposed it. The United States government has forced other countries throughout the world to sign bilateral agreements with it, stating that they will never turn over US citizens to the International Criminal Court, regardless of the crimes committed. This is a very different United States government than the one that supported and encouraged the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II. It is a government that is unfortunately seeking to protect its own high authorities from scrutiny and accountability for their own wrongdoing.

    We know that changing the world is not an easy matter. There is no magic wand. It takes the determination of great leaders of vision like A.N.R. Robinson, but it also takes the commitment and persistence of many people who join together for a noble cause. I think it would be extremely significant for Trinidad and Tobago and useful for the world to establish here the civil society organization I have mentioned with the purpose of forwarding the goal of an International Criminal Court that will be universal in its jurisdiction and by its legal force will raise the moral standards of humankind. Personally, I would like to see this organization originate in Trinidad and Tobago and be called, the A.N.R. Robinson Center for International Criminal Justice. It could be an institute within the newly established A.N.R. Robinson Museum, Library and Ethics Center that will be located in Castara on the island of Tobago.

    A.N.R. Robinson’s life strengthens my faith in the power of an individual to make a difference in our world. He is a man of rock solid principles. Integrity and courage have been the hallmarks of his life and career. As a political leader, he understood clearly the need for all leaders to be held to high standards if we are to have justice. And thus, in pursuing an International Criminal Court, A.N.R. Robinson acted for the benefit of all humanity.

    The number of people of whom this can be said is not large, and includes some of the greatest peace leaders of our time. I believe that it is a high badge of honor. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we honored President Robinson with our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award in 2002, and he was kind enough to come to Santa Barbara to receive the award. This is only one of the many awards he has received for his efforts to establish an International Criminal Court.

    When a man of such great accomplishments in the world as A.N.R. Robinson is kind and humble, it reveals a nobility of spirit. I feel very fortunate to count among my friends a man of such bright and noble spirit, sterling character and significant achievements as Arthur N.R. Robinson.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
  • Teaching Peace

    Teaching Peace

    Peace is a dynamic process of nonviolent social interaction that results in security for all members of a society.

    Peace is not a subject matter taught in many schools. I have often heard it said that the curriculum is too full to add more, but what could be more important than learning about making peace? I think the “full curriculum” is a justification for not wanting to challenge the status quo and teachers are not rewarded for bringing new material into the classroom. I am a proponent of bringing peace into every classroom. Basic questions need to include: How can this problem be solved peacefully? Or, how could this problem have been solved peacefully?

    Blase Bonpane, who received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, suggested that when students study wars in history the only meaningful question is: How could this war have been avoided? We need to stop glorifying war in our cultures and our classrooms. If we want to support our troops, we don’t send them to kill and be killed. If politicians choose war, shouldn’t they also participate in the war? Why are there so few children of political leaders participating in the wars they initiate?

    We live in a culture of militarism that takes war as the norm. How can we change this norm? How can we make peace the norm and war the aberration? Why does our society allocate so much of its resources to the military? Does the money that goes for “defense” really defend us?

    Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of the 20th century, was among the intellectual leaders who understood that nuclear weapons made war too dangerous to continue. Einstein was among those who called not only for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but for the abolition of war. In the Nuclear Age, war puts the future of civilization and the human species at risk. The Earth could go on without humanity, but we cannot go on if we do not bring our dangerous technologies, most prominently nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.

    Our schools teach nationalism and they do so at a historical junction when the world needs global citizens. How many students understand, for example, that there is no global problem that can be solved by any one country, no matter how powerful that country is? How many teachers understand this? Think about it, every global problem – ranging from global warming to terrorism to the nuclear arms race – requires international cooperation.

    The United Nations takes a serious beating in the US media, and of course it has its shortcomings, but if we didn’t have the United Nations we’d have to invent it. Its major purpose is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….” It is a safe environment where representatives of countries have a chance to talk to each other. It is a place where representatives of governments can deliberate on the great problems facing humanity, where they can plan for the future and speak for future generations.

    An important question to ask is: Who has the responsibility to create and maintain peace? The answer, most obviously, is that “we” do, we being all of us. It is easy, though to become lost in the collective “we,” and therefore it must include each of us. Beyond responsibility, there are questions of accountability. That was the great lesson of the Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II, where individual leaders were held to account under international law for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. With leadership goes accountability. This is the principle on which the International Criminal Court was established – to bring Nuremberg into the Nuclear Age.

    In teaching peace, there are three documents with which every student should be familiar: the United Nations Charter, the Principles of Nuremberg and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Without a firm grasp of these 20th century innovations, one cannot be considered educated in the 21st century.

    Let me suggest ten ways of teaching peace that hopefully will make the lessons more compelling and real to the students.

    1. Tell stories. One of the stories, a true one, that I like best is the story of the Christmas Truce during World War I. The British and German soldiers came out of their trenches, shared food and drink, showed each other photos of their families and sang Christmas carols together. They saw each other as human beings, and only returned to their trenches, resuming the fighting, after being threatened by their officers.

    Another story is that of Sadako Sasaki, a young girl who was exposed to radiation poisoning when the US bombed Hiroshima. Ten years later Sadako came down with Leukemia. She tried to regain her health by folding 1000 paper cranes, a Japanese symbol of longevity. On one of the cranes she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.” Unfortunately, she died before she finished folding the cranes. Her classmates finished the folding and today there is a statue in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park dedicated to Sadako and other children who died in the atomic blasts. The statue is always surrounded by tens of thousands of paper cranes sent from all over the world.

    2.Use Peace heroes as role models. There are many amazing peace heroes, living and dead, who have made significant contributions to peace during their lives. You can read sketches of some of these heroes at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s website: www.wagingpeace.org. You can also study such leaders as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Caesar Chavez, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa and others in greater depth. When examining problems of peace, it is always helpful to ask the question: What would Gandhi do? Or, fill in the name of your favorite peace hero.

    3.Infuse drama, art and poetry. Through literature, art and poetry there is much to be learned about peace and war. Lists of books, movies and poems can be found in the Peace Issues section of www.wagingpeace.org. Some of the classic books are All Quiet on the Western Front, Johnny Got His Gun, and Dr. Strangelove. My favorite anti-war movie is The King of Hearts. Such books and movies can open the door to important discussions.

    4.Teach critical thinking. Young people have to learn how to ask questions and probe deeply, rather than just accepting the word of authority figures. They also have to learn how to gather evidence, how to evaluate the source of information, how to apply logic, and so on.

    5.Global perspective. Young people need to break the bonds of nationalism and think globally. Applying a global perspective allows one to see the world as a whole, rather than from the narrow vantage point of a single country. We badly need education for global citizenship. Just as many symbols are used that connote nationalism (the flag, monuments, historical perspectives, etc.), we need to also use symbols that connote global citizenship, such as the flag with the beautiful representation of the Earth from outer space.

    6.Reverse the Roman dictum. The Roman dictum says, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The human species has followed that dictum for the past 2,500 years, and it has always resulted in more war. We need to reverse the Roman dictum and prepare for peace if that is what we truly desire. We prepare for peace by building a culture of peace, within our nations and in the world. Peace is not only the absence of war, but also positive actions to improve health, education and human rights.

    7.Reexamine historical myths. Most countries have developed myths about their own goodness which are not historically accurate. History is told through stories of battles, but there is far more to history than this. These myths need to be exposed to the fresh air of investigation. We will likely find that wars are not glorious and victories are often built on unacceptable atrocities.

    8.Teach peace as proactive. Many people confuse peace with solitude, meditation and contemplation, but peace is not passive. It is a dynamic set of forces kept in balance by individuals and institutions committed to solving conflicts without violence. Peace requires action. You cannot sit back and wait for peace to arrive. Individuals must proactively work for peace. It is not a spectator sport. Anything that one does to build community and cooperation is a contribution to peace.

    9.Engender the ability to empathize. Young people must learn to empathize with others, to feel their pain and sorrow. One way of killing empathy is to brand members of a group, including whole countries, as enemies, and dehumanize the members of that group. Empathy begins with the realization that each of us is a miracle, unique in all the world. How can one miracle kill another or wage war, committing indiscriminate mass murder?

    10.Teach by example. To the extent that a teacher can model peace in their own life, their lessons will be more authentic. As well as teaching peace, we should try to live peace, making empathy, cooperation and nonviolent conflict resolution part of our daily lives.

    I hope that some of these ideas may be helpful in making peace a subject of study, concern and action, both in the classroom and beyond. Peace has never been more important than in our nuclear-armed world, and we each have a responsibility to study peace, live peace and teach peace. We should also keep in mind that peace is a long-term project that once achieved must be maintained. Peace requires persistence and a commitment to never giving up.

    Suggested Reading

    Hamill, Sam (ed.), Poets Against the War, New York: Nation Books, 2003.

    Ikeda, Daisaku and David Krieger, Choose Peace, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age, Santa Monica, Middleway Press, 2002.

    Krieger, David (ed.), Hold Hope, Wage Peace, Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 2005.

    Krieger, David, Today Is Not a Good Day for War, Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 2005.

    Krieger, David (ed.), Hope in a Dark Time, Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 2002.

    McCarthy, Colman, I’d Rather Teach Peace, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.

    Rees, Stuart, Passion for Peace, Exercising Power Creatively, Sidney, Australia: University of New Wales Press, 2003.

    Wells, Leah, Teaching Peace, A Guide for the Classroom and Everyday Life, Santa Barbara: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 2003.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • A Nonkilling, Nonviolent World for the 21st Century

    Dear Friends,

    I am delighted to be attending this Summit, and I would like to thank President Gorbachev, Mayor Veltroni, and the City of Rome for hosting this event. Thank you for inviting me to make this contribution towards the Nobel Peace Laureates Charter for a Nonviolent World.

    I believe that, one of our greatest challenges as the human family, is to transform our violent cultures into a nonkilling, nonviolent culture for the World. This journey from violence to nonviolence will be long and difficult, but human beings mimic each other, and as increasingly more people reject violence, and use the alternatives available, others will follow their example, and change will happen. Already many people are asking, ‘Is it possible to move beyond violence? To build Nonkilling, Nonviolent societies, and World?’ I believe, the answer is YES! However, where violence is endemic, it is easy to be apathetic. Also, particularly in our current world political situation, faced as we are, with an ethical and moral crisis, brought about by many Governments’ abuse of their power, especially those Governments’ who have the most temporal power, often civil society feel disempowered and hopeless.

    But we should never give up hope. If we continue in a negative frame of mind, to accept violence, it will seriously threaten our quality of life, and our security. The bad news is that all violence, be it bullying, torture, homicide, violent crime, terrorism, violent revolution, armed struggles, suicide bombings, hunger strikes to the death, nuclear weapons, militarism, and war, tragically often take human life, and add to the culture of violence. And all violence, State and Non-state, is a form of injustice, which demeans us all.

    Killings by Governments, and nongovernmental armed groups, and threats to kill, underlie all other threats to the survival of humanity, damaging peoples’ physical, psychological, economic, social, cultural, and environmental, well-being. If we are to reverse this downward spiral of violence, we need to uphold the Principal that, everyone has a right not to be tortured, or killed, and a responsibility not to torture, kill, or support the killing of others. These are basic human rights enshrined in national and international laws and we all must stand firm on the upholding of these Rights by our Governments and by ‘armed revolutionaries’ or ‘armed insurgency groups’.

    The good news is that we are not born violent, most humans never kill, and the World Health Organization says Human Violence is a ‘preventable disease’. So happily we can be cured! Prevention starts in our own minds, with us choosing to reject negativity, changing to a positive, disarmed mindset, cultivating love of ourselves and others, and choosing not to kill. Prevention, also starts in our own conscience where we know what is right and refuse to be morally blinded in our mind and heart by nationalism and militarism, a moral disease which continues to destroy many people. For example, in Iraq, where the USA Government has carried out war crimes, in Chechnya where the Russian Government continues to commit war crimes, the Israel Government’s massacre in the occupied Palestinian terroritories, and State and non-state killings in many other places around our world.

    Nowadays we hear a lot of talk about security, The greatest power on earth, the United States, decided that the way to achieve security was through shock and awe, destruction of countries, and the multiple deaths of people including her own young men and women transformed into soldiers. Over 654,000 Iraqi civilians and over 2,800 USA soldiers have needlessly died. Such violent reactions endorse a culture of violence, rather than a culture of dialogue with its citizens and perceived enemies. In Northern Ireland, we have been through all of that. And we know that it doesn’t work. Violence does not prevent violence. The failure of militarism, paramilitarism, in Northern Ireland is mirrored in Iraq. Should it not be obvious that we are now at a point of human history where we must abolish the culture of violence and embrace a culture of nonviolence for the sake of our children and the children of the world? But is such a quantum leap of thinking possible? Nothing is possible unless we can imagine it. So what is meant by such a society?

    Prof. Paige in his book ‘Nonkilling Global Political Science’ (l) says: “A nonkilling society can be defined as a human community from the smallest to the largest in which (l) there is no killing of humans and no threats to kill, (2) there are no weapons for killing humans and no ideological justifications for killing – in computer terms no ‘hardware’ and no ‘software’ for killing and (3) there are no social conditions that depend, for maintenance or change, upon the threat or use of killing force”. I would add that it is not enough to decide not to kill but we need to learn to live nonviolently in our lives and families. Nonviolence is a decision to protect and celebrate life, to love oneself, others, and ones enemies, and to bring wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation into our relationships. Nonviolence recognizes principled dissent against injustice and the misuse of power and upholds the right to civil disobedience as an integral part of a democratic society. Nonviolence is based on unconditional love, truth, equality, justice, and respect for life, and all of creation.

    To build such a nonviolent culture we need first to move away from dependence upon threat and use of killing force for security, and by that I mean armies and all imitations of armies. Second we must stop using our economic resources for the unholy alliance of arms dealers and warmongers. Currently there are over 20 million people under arms, and an annual military budget of one trillion dollars a year. According to one United Nations report, an investment of less than a fourth of the world’s collective annual expenditure on arms, would be enough to solve the major economic and environmental problems facing humanity. If this is true, and I believe that it is, isn’t it a crime against humanity that those who exercise power in our world continue to pour billions of dollars into so-called security enriching the arms dealers in the process, while neglecting the children who are dying every day of poverty and disease. Ending the military/industrial corporations stranglehold on many Governments’ policies, and introducing policies which meet the basic needs of the people would help remove many of the root causes of violence. We know what to do, but what is lacking is the will of economic and political leaders, who continue their policies to feed the death culture of war, nuclear weapons and arms. This then is just not a political, economic, and socio-cultural crisis but a deeply spiritual and moral one.

    The Human family is moving away from the violent mindset, and increasingly violence, war, armed struggles, violent revolutions, are no longer romanticed, glorified, or culturally accepted as ways of solving our problems. As a pacifist I believe that violence is never justified, and there are always alternatives to force and threat of force. We should challenge the society that tells us there is no alternative to violence. In all areas of our life we can adopt nonviolence, in our lifestyles, our education, our commence, our defense, our governance. Also the Political scientists and academics could help this cultural change by teaching nonviolence as a serious political science, and help too in the further development of effective nonviolence to bring about social and political change. Also by implementing the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace and nonviolence for the Children of the World, (2001-2010) and teaching it in educational establishments, can help evolve this new culture.

    Nonviolence is an ideal that has seldom been explored. But it is not an impossible ideal. History is littered with examples of nonviolent resistance, many of them successful. Gandhi and King successfully used nonviolence for human rights issues; Italy’s own St. Francis, a Mystic/Ecologist/Environmentalist, is a model to us of how to apply a holistic approach to living nonviolently, especially in a world where climate change is one of the greatest challenges to humanity’s future. Abdul Khaffer Khan, a great Muslim leader, demonstrated the power of courageous Islamic nonviolence through the unarmed Servants of God army and parallel government to liberate the Pathan people from British colonial rule in India’s North-West Frontier Province (now in Pakistan). Their example deserves to be known widely throughout the world (2).

    All Faith traditions can play a role in building this new culture, as each have their own prophets of nonviolence. They can teach the Golden Rule of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’ and also to ‘love your enemies’, which, I believe, is necessary for humanity’s survival in this age of military madness. I speak from my own faith tradition which is Christian. I myself came into pacifism and nonviolence in the early l97O’s. Facing State Violence I asked myself ‘As a Christian can I ever use violence”? I studied and rejected the ‘Just War’ theory and went to the cross where Jesus’ message of love your enemies, do not kill, is most clearly shown. I also agree with the American theologian, the late Fr McKenzie, who said ‘You cannot read the gospels and not know Jesus was totally nonviolent.’ He also described the Just War theory as a phony piece of morality. How tragic, in light of Jesus’ example, to know that the American Catholic Hierarchy, with a couple of honorable exceptions, have blessed yet again Catholics going to participate in an unjust, immoral and illegal war, in Iraq, thus ignoring their own Pope’s guidance on this matter. But, I believe, until the Christian Churches resurrect from their longstanding moral malaise of blessing, ambiguity, or consent-bestowing silence, on violence, militarism, and war, and gives Spiritual guidance by abolishing the Just War theory, and developing a theology more in keeping with the nonviolence of Jesus, it behooves those of us who are Christian, and those who follow other spiritual paths, or none, to follow our own conscience in such matters.

    As world citizens working together in solidarity we can abolish nuclear weapons and war, demilitarize the World, build neutral and nonaligned countries, develop unarmed policing and nonmilitary forms of self-defense. We can establish or strengthen nonviolent institutions, such as: Global Nonkilling Spiritual Council: Global Nonkilling Security Council: Global Nonkilling Nonmilitary self-defense Security, such as the Nonviolent Peaceforce: Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies: Global Nonkilling Trusteeship Fund: Ministries of Peace by National Governments: (2) (All of these proposed nonviolent institutions are described at as addendum to this paper).

    To build a nonviolent culture will also mean changing Patriarchal and Hierarchical systems which are unjust and under which women, suffer from oppressive structures and institutions. It will mean in particular challenging violence and injustice in our own societies and extending our support to all humans who suffer injustice everywhere. To people who are suffering torture, the imates in Guantanamo and other such Guantanamos in whatever country, and supporting whistleblowers like Mordechai Vanunu who continues to suffer for telling the truth. It will not be easy but it is necessary, and it is possible together, in our interconnected, interdependent human family, to build a new world civilization with a nonviolent heart.

    Peace and happiness to you all,

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire (www.peacepeople.com)

    Note l: “Nonkilling Global Political Science” (Xlibris 2002) by Prof. Glenn D. Paige (Freely posted on web at www.globalnonviolence.org). It is being translated into 24 languages. Former Indian Prime Minister I.K. Gujral has advised, “This book should be read in every political science department and by the public”. In his introduction to the Russian edition, Prof. William Smirnov, Vice-President of the Russian Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association has written: “The basic idea in this unique book can and should become the basis of common values for humanity in the 2lst century as well as a programme for their realization”.

    Note 2. The Pathan Unarmed (Oxford University Press 2000) by Dr. Mukulika, Banerjee.

    Details of nonviolent institutions:

    Global Nonkilling Spiritual Council: Composed of men and women elected to represent faiths and philosophies committed to principled nonkilling. Serves as a continuing body to counsel the United Nations, governments, other institutions, and world citizens.

    Global Nonkilling Security Council. Composed of persons elected among distinguished contributors to the theory, strategy, tactics, and practice of nonkilling domestic and transnational defense. Serves as a continuing source of nonviolent security alternatives for consideration by all parties in potential or actual deadly conflicts that threaten physical, economic and ecological well-being.

    Global Nonkilling Service: Composed of locally rooted professional and volunteer workers in every country, trained in nonmilitary skills of security, conflict transformation, constructive service, and humanitarian and disaster relief. Builds upon nonviolent military and nongovernmental experience such as the Gandhi and Shanti Sena and the Nonviolent Peaceforce.

    Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies: Prepares local and transnational leaders, partly by biographical studies, to take nonkilling initiatives in response to the interdependent human needs for security, economic well-being, dignity, ecological sustainability and problem solving co-operation. Seeks to build mutually strengthening relationships based upon the nonkilling principles in co operation with the United Nations University Japan, the UNU International Leadership Academy in Jordan, the University of Peace in Costa Rica, and other peace-seeking educational and training institutions.

    Global Nonkilling Trusteeship Fund: Established in the Gandhian tradition of mutual trusteeship for the well-being of all, honors pioneers of nonkilling service to humanity, throughout the world. Collects voluntary and service contributions to support implementing institutions. Management board to be composed equally between representatives of the most and least wealthy global citizens.

     

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire received the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize and the 1991 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. She recently participated in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 International Law Symposium, “At the Nuclear Precipice: Nuclear Weapons and the Abandonment of International Law.”

  • War is a Racket

    War is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

    Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

    And what is this bill?

    This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

    For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

    Full text available at http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm.

    Smedley Butler was a Major General in the US Marine Corps. At the time of his death, he was the most decorated Marine in US history.

  • Preventable Genocide: Who Speaks for Humanity

    It’s wonderful to be in Santa Barbara and to see such a good crowd – especially given the fact that it is beautiful Saturday morning in sunny California and genocide is the subject of our discussion. It is clear that I have strayed from my California roots and been on the East Coast too long, as I am reminded of a cartoon that appeared in the New Yorker magazine, with the text, “Would you like to grab a drink after the Genocide panel?” How indeed, do we incorporate something like genocide into our “normal” lives?

    In the aftermath of the Second World War, Raphael Lemkin coined the word ‘genocide’. Lemkin, a lawyer and Holocaust survivor wanted to find a way to describe the policies that were intended to exterminate Jews throughout Europe in order to prevent such a thing from happening again. Based on his efforts, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and went into force three years later. The Convention defined genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” and it made genocide a punishable crime under international law.

    Institutionalization of Hope

    The United Nations was itself created from the ashes of World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust in order to prevent the extraordinary human suffering witnessed at that time. From the beginning, the United Nations has spoken to the ideals of people around the world for a better and more secure future – it was what former President Clinton recently called the “institutionalization of hope,” based on three ideals: the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of economic development, and the protection of human rights. As envisioned from the beginning of the Organization, governments could take action under the United Nations Charter to prevent genocide. The United Nations second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold said the United Nations’spare job was not to take us to Heaven but to keep us from Hell. Genocide is the ultimate Hell.

    But we have not always lived up to the promise, sometimes succumbing to divisive international politics; the lack of collective political will to confront evil; and a callous tendency to preference sovereign rights of nations over the rights of vulnerable individuals in those nations. While the United Nations helped ultimately bring peace to Cambodia in the 1990s, it did so only after more than a million people died at the hands of the pathological Khmer Rouge regime. Alongside all countries of the world and all other international institutions, the United Nations failed to stop the mass murder of 800,000 in Rwanda in 1994. And again it failed, we all failed, to protect civilians from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in the mid-90s.

    In short, history demonstrates that the United Nations faces a fundamental dilemma: on the one hand it represents both the highest ideals of humanity and the “institutionalization of hope,” but at the same time, its high ambitions have often contrasted sharply with the realities of what national governments have been able to agree on and deliver.

    While the United Nations may be imperfect, it is also indispensable. As the only universal body representing and bringing together every country and region of the world, the United Nations enjoys a unique legitimacy.

    So the United Nations is being asked to do more and more things: a quadrupling of United Nations peacekeeping forces in the last decade, so that at this moment, with over 93,000 sets of “boots on the ground” in 18 hot-spots in every corner of the globe, the United Nations is second only to the US in terms of the number of troops deployed around the world. The United Nations has also been relied on for providing humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies, such as in Southeast Asia after the tsunami and in Darfur, so that now there are more humanitarian missions run by the United Nations than ever before, serving the needs of over 40 million people around the world each year in almost 40 countries. The United Nations has also become the pre-eminent provider of organizing and monitoring national elections. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals are a blueprint that have been agreed to by all the world’s countries to meet the needs of the poor, including halving extreme poverty and curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

    Responsibility to Protect

    But what about preventing genocide?

    Is the United Nations’role limited to providing the normative and legal framework for combating genocide embodied in the Convention? Or can the United Nations become the pre-eminent service provider in this area, as it has in peackekeeping, humanitarian, elections, and providing a framework for development? The United Nations is not a world government, and it does not have its own military to send in to prevent or stop genocide. Ultimately, the decision to intervene and deliver troops and equipment is up to the governments of the countries that make up the United Nations, and more specifically, the Security Council.
    But the United Nations’s role is extremely important in getting governments to make that calculation. The Secretary-General has a moral voice to draw attention to humanitarian crises and he has done that tirelessly on Darfur.

    And in September 2005 at the United Nations, the largest gathering of heads of state ever assembled took another huge step. They approved, by consensus, the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect” – the idea that every government has a responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, but when they are unable or unwilling to do so, the community of nations is be prepared to take collective action. In terms of international norms and law, this was a fundamental shift. Governments have always been able to hide behind sovereignty, by saying that they have a right to determine what goes on behind their own borders. Now, governments as large as China and as small as Burundi have acknowledged that they have a responsibility to their civilians and that failure to do so means that the international community has the responsibility and can take action, either through diplomatic, humanitarian, or other means, including military means (under Chapter VII) of the United Nations Charter.

    Such a historic agreement is possible only through the United Nations. Those who criticize the United Nations, arguing instead for coalitions of the willing or alliances of democracies to replace it, have failed to realize that an agreement on how to address genocide by angels alone, leaves most of humanity at the mercy of those less angelically inclined. But through the United Nations we now have an agreed principle for protecting all of the world’s people.

    However, despite its adoption last year, the Responsibility to Protect has not yet been operationalized. Turning it from a principle into an actionable norm is essential. Civil society and NGOs can help by influencing policy makers in governments and insisting that they put into action the Responsibility to Protect.
    Three different types of United Nations institutions can play on enhanced role in the fight against genocide:

    First, the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide

    In 2004, the Secretary-General appointed Mr. Juan Méndez, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide based on the lessons learned from past instances of collective failure to address gross human rights violations. The Special Advisor acts as an early warning mechanism to bring attention to situations that could result in genocide and advises the Secretary-General and the Security Council. This is the first time the United Nations has had a position that is devoted exclusively to preventing genocide and mass abuses of human rights, and he has been active on Darfur, traveling to the region and reporting back on how to prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

    Second, the new Human Rights Council

    Another recent development that can significantly bolster human rights at the United Nations is the establishment of the Human Rights Council to replace the Commission on Human Rights. The world needs an intergovernmental body which effectively deals with human rights. The Human Rights Council is a crucial opportunity and holds great promise despite some early stumbles that make it appear to be replicating some of the failures of the Commission. It meets year around and has a new feature – the universal peer review that ensures that all members, including the most powerful countries, who sit in judgment of human rights situations around the world, have their own human rights records scrutinized. The Council is an important development but it has to be supported and made to work.
    Third, the International Criminal Court , war crimes tribunals, and “hybrid” courts

    Within the last 10 years, we have seen ICC investigations on Sudan and Uganda have dramatically changed the political equation there. remarkable progress in international justice – the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, which have tried the first genocide cases against top officials, and the hybrid national/international courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia. But questions have been raised about whether pursuing justice may undermine peace. In cases like Uganda, where the suffering has gone on for two decades, some say that we should not disrupt such hard won peace talks by trying the perpetrators. But peace without justice for the victims is not sustainable or wise.

    Darfur as a test case

    So we have witnessed progress in key areas. But can we prevent genocide?

    The singular biggest test we face is that in Darfur, Sudan.

    The situation on the ground is stark. Since the conflict began in 2003, more than 200,000 people have been killed from fighting, famine, or disease, and over 2.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. As a reminder, just 6 days ago large scale militia attacks in West Darfur on 8 settlements caused scores of civilian deaths, including 27 children under the age of 12.

    With the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in May we had a framework for ending the violence and a road map for moving to stability, but not all parties have accepted the Agreement. The Security Council adopted a resolution to send in United Nations peacekeeping troops. This has been rejected by the Sudanese government. We therefore need smart pressure and a global diplomatic campaign. In the meantime, the African Union has done a tremendous job, but it needs to be strengthened. The UN has committed to providing support for the AU mission in Sudan, and we are looking at bolstering that support, but again, contributions depend on Member States.

    Now we have to alter the calculation of potential perpetrators of abuses, and equally importantly, make it much more difficult for governments which decide not to act to prevent genocide.

    The Responsibility to Protect must be put into practice. The role of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide could be strengthened. The Human Rights Council, should adopt a country-specific resolution on Darfur as recommended by the Secretary-General that urges the government of Sudan to allow United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur.

    Achieving a lasting peace in Darfur also means bringing those responsible to justice. The Security Council has referred Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The case against the perpetrators is being built as we speak. Action by the International Criminal Court must be supported and seen through.

    Conclusion

    In order to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, we still face tremendous challenges. But nothing is inevitable. Genocide is indeed preventable. 60 years ago, we didn’t even have a name for this evil. Now, we not only can name it, we have legal mechanisms obligating all to act to stop it, and increasing experience at trying to stop it. We now have the knowledge, we have the United Nations institution to help organize our response, and the political, economic, and military tools to prevent it. The question is, “Will we use them?”

    Let us work together to do so. Santa Barbara may feel as far from Darfur as a place can be – indeed it is. And yet, you all turned up today to engage on this most difficult of subjects. A crucial first step. Now organize, let your representatives know how you feel. The United States as a country must show leadership. Support United Nations efforts. Place pressure on all national governments to fulfill their obligations. Support the NGOs whose dedicated staff are risking their lives on the front lines.

    Today’s topic was “Who speaks for humanity?” One of my favorite saying is by Pastor Martin Niemöller, a German citizen of conscience who reflected on his experience with genocide in his own country 60 years ago:

    First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

    So to the question posed today, “Who speaks for Humanity?”, the answer is clear – we do. We must.

    Robert Orr is Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The speech was given at a United Nations Day event held in Santa Barbara, California on November 4, 2006.
  • 2006 Annual Dinner Speech: World Citizenship Award to Bianca Jagger

    2006 Annual Dinner Speech: World Citizenship Award to Bianca Jagger

    Let me state the obvious: We are living in deeply troubling times. Having learned little from our mistakes in Vietnam, we repeat them in Iraq. Having learned little from the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have moved again to the nuclear precipice. Our cities, our country and civilization itself remain at risk of catastrophic nuclear devastation.

    The North Korean nuclear test did not happen in a vacuum. It happened after continued failures to negotiate in good faith with the North Koreans and after failures of our country to lead in fulfilling our obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also happened after our government performed 1,054 nuclear tests, and has continued to the present to conduct sub-critical nuclear tests. Current US nuclear policies are leading us in the same direction with Iran, and other countries will follow if we do not change these policies.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are convinced that we cannot trust the future of civilization and humanity itself to political or military leaders. We must bring about change – change in vision and in leadership. Our work is to educate and inspire you and others throughout the world to become the leaders we have been waiting for so that together we can change the barren landscape of nuclear arrogance, threat and absurdity to a beautiful global garden, alive with diversity, which assures a future for our children and all children, including those of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. We will not be safe until all the world’s children are safe, and this cannot happen in a nuclear-armed world.

    In the past week, the Foundation sponsored its third Think Outside the Bomb Conference, bringing together more than 150 young people to learn about nuclear dangers and to develop the tools of leadership that they will need to change the world. I’d like to ask our Youth Empowerment Director, Will Parrish, who organized this conference, to stand and be recognized. Next week Will travels to New York, where he will lead an East Coast Think Outside the Bomb Conference with more than 100 young leaders. Let me also ask the rest of our committed and hardworking staff at the Foundation to stand and be recognized.

    I’ve recently returned from Japan where I participated in the 3rd Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The event was sponsored by the city of Nagasaki, and reflected the desire of the people of Nagasaki to assure that they would remain the last city ever to be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

    At the conference, there was considerable concern expressed about the North Korean nuclear test, which took place very much in the neighborhood of Japan. Rather than seek heavy sanctions on North Korea or push for Japan itself to develop a nuclear force, the desire of the Global Citizens’ Assembly was for the creation of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to include all the countries in the region as well as the nuclear weapons states, such as the United States, with nuclear forces in the region.

    The conference concluded with the adoption of a 15-point Appeal. I’d like to share with you just two points from this Appeal.

    The first point stated: “We strongly proclaim that nuclear weapons are the most barbaric, inhumane and cowardly of weapons, and we call upon the governments of all countries, without exception, to renounce the practice of seeking security through nuclear weapons.”

    The final point of the Appeal stated: “We call upon citizens everywhere to add their voices to those of the Hibakusha [atomic bomb survivors] in calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons before these weapons destroy our cities, our countries and civilization itself.”

    The survivors of the atomic bombings speak as World Citizens, as does our honoree for our World Citizenship Award tonight.

    A World Citizen recognizes the fundamental unity of humankind, and the increased need to embrace that unity brought about by the dangers of the Nuclear Age. A World Citizen recognizes that our greatest problems can neither be contained nor controlled within national borders. Solving all the great problems of our time – from preserving the environment, to halting global warming, to upholding human rights, to living in peace and preventing war, to ending the nuclear threat to humanity – all of these require global cooperation that must be built on a foundation of World Citizenship.

    Bianca Jagger was born in Nicaragua and witnessed first-hand the terror and brutality of the Somoza regime. Witnessing the greed and injustice of this regime set her on a lifetime path of speaking out and working for the oppressed and dispossessed of the world.

    Ms. Jagger has traveled the world in support of the poor, the infirm and the disadvantaged, those whose lives have been torn apart by war and environmental devastation. Wherever she has gone she has taken a strong and outspoken stand for peace and justice. She has put her life at risk in war-torn countries, and used her celebrity to be a voice for those who would not otherwise be heard or even noticed.

    For her tireless efforts, she has received many awards, including the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize. She honors us with her presence this evening, and we are very pleased to present her with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 World Citizenship Award.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Helen Caldicott: Credo

    I believe that women have the fate of the Earth in the palm of their hands. Some 53 per cent of us are women and we really are pretty wimpish. We don’t step up to the plate – and it’s time we took over. I think men have had their turn and we’re in a profound mess.

    I believe that money is the root of all evil. When people start believing that materialism will produce ultimate, lasting happiness, it is a sure sign that they will be intensely unhappy. One third of Americans are on anti-depressants. Instead, what they should be doing is lifting their souls, not their faces.

    I believe in the sanctity of nature. I believe we can save the planet. We are smart enough to do that, but we must act with a sense of dire emergency.

    I believe that the media are controlling and determining the face of the Earth. As Thomas Jefferson said, an informed democracy will behave in a responsible fashion.

    I believe in the beauty of classical music. I must have it; it feeds my soul.

    I believe in the goodness in every person’s soul even though it’s sometimes hard to see. I treat a lot of patients where either their children are dying or they are dying. Even though sometimes it’s heavily obscured, in extremes this goodness will emerge.

    I don’t believe in a god. I have helped many people to die and believe that it’s ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

    I believe that heaven and hell are present every day.

    I believe that life is an absolute gift to be treasured accordingly. We are very privileged to even have been conceived.

    I believe that we are here to serve. We are not here to make ourselves happy, to be self-indulgent or to be hedonistic. The happiest state that I achieve is when I work in my clinic helping my children with cystic fibrosis to face death and help to treat them and look after their siblings. I’m utterly exhausted at the end of the day, but deeply, deeply fulfilled.

    I believe in the beauty of my garden. I’ve got two and a half acres and I’m never more in touch with the power of the universe than when I’m in my garden on a warm, sunny day tending to my flowers and my trees, with the pelicans circling overhead.

    I believe that there are far too many people on the planet. In the year 1900 there were one billion of us in the world. Now there are 6.5 billion and the predictions are that within a few decades there will be 14 billion.

    I believe that the greatest terror in the world is not a few terrorists hitting the World Trade Center. It’s the fact that half the world’s people still live in dire poverty and 30,000 to 40,000 children die every day from malnutrition and starvation, while the rich nations continue to get richer and richer.

    I believe that the most important job in the world is parenting. Women need to be financially supported for it. Their job is far more important than that of chief executive officers at the head of huge corporations.

    I believe the secret of happiness is a) serving our fellow human beings and loving and caring for everyone. I don’t mean crappy Californian love; I mean really deep caring for each other; b) to understand our own psychology in a profound way, so we can be a more constructive human being; and c) to care for this incredible planet of ours.

    Helen Caldicott, a pediatrician, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia.

    Originally published by The Independent UK

  • Building Global Peace in the Nuclear Age

    Building Global Peace in the Nuclear Age

    In an age in which the weapons we have created are capable of destroying the human species, what could be more important than building global peace? The Nuclear Age has made peace an imperative. If we fail to achieve and maintain global peace, the future of humanity will remain at risk. This was the view of the preeminent scientists, led by Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, who issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955. They stated, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” They continued, “People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.”

    With the end of the Cold War, nuclear dangers did not evaporate. Rather, new dangers of nuclear proliferation, terrorism and war emerged, in a climate of public ignorance, apathy and denial. Awakening the public to these dangers and building global peace are the greatest challenges of our time, challenges made necessary by the power and threat of nuclear arsenals.

    Peace is a two-sided coin: it requires ending war as a human institution and controlling and eliminating its most dangerous weapons, but it also requires building justice and ending structural violence. One of the most profound questions of our time is: How can an individual lead a decent life in a society that promotes war and structural violence?

    The answer is that the only way to do this is to be a warrior for peace in all its dimensions. This means to actively oppose society’s thrust toward war and injustice, and to actively support efforts to resolve disputes nonviolently and to promote equity and justice in one’s society and throughout the world. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” We know, though, that it doesn’t bend of its own accord. It bends because people care and take a stand for peace and justice.

    If we are committed to building global peace in the Nuclear Age, we must say an absolute No to war, and we must demonstrate by our words and actions our commitment to peace. We must have confidence that our acts, though the acts of a single person, can and will make a difference. We must understand that we are not alone, although we may be isolated by a corporate media and a sea of indifference. It is our challenge to awaken ourselves, to educate others and to consistently set an example for others by our daily lives. To be fully human is to put our shoulders to the arc of history so that it will bend more swiftly toward the justice and peace that we seek.

    Humanity is now joined, for better or worse, in a common future, and each of us has a role to play in determining that future. Issues of peace and war are far too important to be left only to political leaders. Most political leaders don’t know how to lead for peace. They are caught up in the war system and fear they will lose support if they oppose it. They need to be educated to be peace leaders. Strangely, most political leaders take their lead from the voters, so let’s lead them toward a world at peace.

    If you are an educator, educate for peace. If you are an artist, communicate for peace. If you are a professional, step outside the boundaries of your profession and act like the ordinary human miracle that you really are. If you are an ordinary human miracle, live with the dignity and purpose befitting the miracle of life and stand for peace.

    This will not be easy. There will be times when you will be very discouraged, but you must never give up. You will find that hope and action are intertwined. Hope gives rise to action, as action gives rise to hope. The best and most reliable way to build global peace in the Nuclear Age is to take a step in that direction, no matter how small, and the path will open to you to take a next step and a next. In following this path, your life will be entwined with the lives of people everywhere.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.