Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: peace

  • Stop the US Foul Play

    Perverse as it may seem, we should be grateful to the Bush administration for its recent clumsy efforts to undermine the International Criminal Court just as it came into existence on July 1. The administration’s maladroit use of the United Nations Security Council to alter the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the Court, should be a wake-up call for all those committed to building an international system based on a rule of law and all who care about maintaining the United Nations as a credible organization.

    First, any illusion that the present U.S. administration might have a smidgeon of respect for international treaties or multilateral co-operation should be finally dispelled. The disdain of the Americans is palpable; they’ll resort to crude means to wreck any form of international architecture with which they disagree.

    The argument they made in demanding immunity from the ICC — that this was simply a way of protecting their peacekeepers — was a false one, and they know it. As Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s permanent representative to the UN, pointed out, the United States has all the safeguards it needs — particularly the fact that the ICC is a jurisdiction of last resort.

    This means that if any crime were committed by an American, be it by a soldier stationed in Bosnia or by the Secretary of Defence in Washington, then the U.S. justice system — civilian courts or military tribunals — would be entitled to prosecute the case. The ICC only comes into play when a nation state is unwilling or incapable of exercising legal action against an act of genocide or a crime against humanity, as defined in the treaty.

    Unfortunately, this refutation of the Americans’ oft-stated objection never got the attention it deserved; too often, the media bought the false notion that this was a jurisdictional dispute. The antagonism of Washington’s current rulers toward the ICC, and their reason for disavowing the Clinton administration’s signature on the Rome Treaty, is that they do not want to be restrained by any limitation on their actions, including compliance with international criminal law.

    What’s particularly shocking about this attitude is that it flies in the face of all President George W. Bush’s aims as set out in his campaign against terrorism. We hear constantly that this is a great battle between forces of good and evil, of justice versus injustice. Yet rather than embrace a genuine, broadly supported effort to construct a global system of legal co-operation in investigating, capturing, prosecuting and incarcerating international criminals including terrorists, the Bush administration set out to emasculate such an institution.

    That was bad enough. But the Americans compounded the damage inflicted on the international multilateral system by their tactic of holding hostage the renewal of a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans and subverting the role of the Security Council. The so-called compromise arrived at by backroom deals among the permanent five members of the council is frankly a cave-in to U.S. demands.

    And it sets two very dangerous precedents. First is the use of blackmail on peacekeeping to achieve the purely self-interested objective of one of the council’s permanent members. Second, the compromise acquiesces to the Security Council’s questionable right to amend by interpretation a treaty arrived at in open discussion by representatives of more than 100 nation states in a founding convention. The compromise, giving a 12-month hoist to any application of treaty provisions, abrogates the original intent of the drafters. It does not protect the integrity of the Rome Statute, as claimed.

    Fortunately, that position is not going unchallenged. Our ambassador at the UN, supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, has led the fight to preserve the validity of the court. Mr. Heinbecker was able to obtain an open debate at the council and used that to expose U.S. myths and mobilize opposition to the original and more blatant initiative to achieve blanket immunity. It was Canadian diplomacy at its best.

    And it must be continued by our seeking to invoke the engagement of the UN General Assembly on this vital matter. The permanent five members have sought by a sneaky procedural device in the wording of the compromise resolution to keep the assembly out of the picture. But this position is not impregnable; it’s imperative that the assembly be seized of both the inherent threat to future peacekeeping missions and the erosion of the ICC that the council decision entails.

    In fact, there’s now an opportunity to institute even further reform. The time has come to begin working toward the democratization of the Security Council by insisting that all members be elected. The UN cannot be credible when its decisions are so dominated by a small, unaccountable elite of states that do not represent the full interests of the world — especially when the Security Council’s permanent members use their privileged position to eviscerate the Charter of the United Nations.

    While that monumental task is under way the role of the General Assembly needs to be asserted and enhanced.

    A good place to start is by building a capacity for peacekeeping that doesn’t rely on the Americans. One irony of their indignant stand against the ICC having jurisdiction over peacekeepers is that, of the 45,000 peacekeepers serving in UN missions, only 745 are supplied by the United States. Where the Americans do have an edge is in transport, logistics and intelligence-gathering. Canada should co-operate with the Europeans to develop those capacities, so that the next time the Americans want to play hardball, the rest of the world can tell them to take their ball and go home.

    The International Criminal Court needs careful stewardship, attention, resources and support during this critical start-up period. We know it faces an implacable foe in the present U.S. administration. This is all the more reason to redouble efforts to assure its effective launch and to continue campaigning to bring more members on board.

    Establishing the first new international institution of this new century dedicated to protecting people against violation of their basic rights is a remarkable achievement in the progress of humankind. Canada has played an important role from the time of the ICC’s inception. We were there last week to defend it against unwarranted attack. We now have the continuing task of helping to give it a firm foundation. Thank goodness for the wake-up call.
    *Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000, is director and CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at the University of British Columbia.

    THE GLOBE AND MAIL
    Wednesday, July 17, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A13

  • The Myth of Peace

    If history is any indication, the United States may be subject to the violence of war within my lifetime, I am 42. Military scholars say that war and its resulting violence on a civilian population is unavoidable. We are told that peace just isn’t obtainable in the Middle East, or in other war torn countries across the globe; that violent conflict will always be a fact of life as we try to control territory and natural resources. We are given example after example how, throughout history and including today, violent conflict is inevitable and in some cases necessary.

    Some people are quick to defend the notion that there is nothing to be done about civilian death and destruction caused by violent conflict, that in times such as these, war is best left to the experts. It is true that only war experts know how to successfully conduct war, that to win a conflict is to win by any means, and that includes civilian casualties. Talking heads for the military tell us that they are working to reduce the number of civilian casualties through more efficient means of killing-smarter bombs, better technology. But, the truth remains that while any military is good at killing, it is inept at not targeting civilians. After all, to target civilians is to terrorize a population and to attack an enemy’s infrastructure. With this illogic, there is no such thing as a non military target.

    Yet, if we leave war to the war experts, who will oversee the peace process? Who are our peace experts? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? They have been buddies since their early thirties, and they have amassed power by putting their friends in important positions throughout the government and the military. They are war experts dictating military policy for this country, yet there is not a diplomat for peace between the two of them. There is no peace equivalent to the Department of Defense, we have no such office or branch of government that we can go to in times such as these. Our nonexistent Department of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Services didn’t just get an additional $40 billion infusion into an already huge capital, operating, and maintenance budget-that was our Department of War. Blind military spending appears to be a priority for our country, with no visible way to counteract or slow it down. The peace dividend has long since been chucked out the window.

    And, what has become of our domestic programs that deal with our children’s education; our failing health care system, our weakened social security, our declining environmental health, and our loss of morale as citizens of this country?

    It wasn’t the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001 and the threat of terrorism that is causing this country’s morale to plummet. It is the lack of hope that things will ever get better in the lifetime that is ahead. There is no clear way out, no end in sight.

    That is because we are spending billions of dollars on high tech toys of destruction for a group of people who want to see major conflict, so that they can use their toys against military targets, and civilians if necessary. They want to see this conflict happen just like a six-year-old boy with a firecracker wants to see it explode.

    Civilian Casualties

    Let the facts speak for themselves: World War II resulted in killing 61 million people, 67% of those killed (40 million) were civilian. Violent clashes and wars world wide for the 1950s resulted in 4.6 million people killed, 50 percent being civilian (2.3 million). In the 1960s, 6.5 million people were killed, 56% were civilian (3.64 million). The 1970s saw fewer people killed (3 million), but most of them were civilians (2 million). The 1980s saw 5.5 million people killed through violent conflict around the world, with over 4 million being civilian. Conflict and wars of the 1990s left 5 million people killed worldwide, half were civilian. From WWII to 2000 we have seen 85.6 million killed, with 63 % of those being civilian (54 million).

    The Gulf War

    The Gulf War has seen 200,000 casualties, both civilian and military, by the end of the conflict. But, ten years after the end of this conflict, 10,000 American service men and women had died from the Gulf War Syndrome. Of the 600,000 troops that had served in the Gulf War, 230,000 have applied for medical assistance since the end of that conflict. A combination of things are suspected causes of this widespread illness. It is believed that either untested anthrax vaccinations, the transfer of toxic poly-hydrocarbons from plastic packaging of MRE’s (meals ready to eat), or troop use of depleted uranium munitions (which was never disclosed to the troops who were using them) have caused severe illness. Whatever the cause, this is a better kill and injury rate than any enemy could hope to level on our troops.

    Because of sanctions on Iraq, 500,000 children have died from diarrhea and malnutrition from the lack of clean water, a direct result of targeting civilian infrastructure by the U.S. military.

    Why are these numbers significant?

    As technology improves and as dollars increase, the efficiency of killing also improves. But improving the efficiency of killing doesn’t reduce the number of civilian deaths, it increases the number of civilian deaths. The number increases because there is a greater tendency to use these weapons on lesser known targets. If it can be claimed that a “smart bomb” (remember- bombs are only as smart as the people who use them) can “surgically” remove a military target within tight civilian quarters with minimal civilian casualties, then the tendency to use these weapons in tight civilian quarters will increase, resulting in higher numbers of civilian deaths.

    The myth of Peace

    Civilians do not wage war. Indeed, war and military police actions are argued as necessary to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. So, civilians agree to support the military in promise that the war will not touch them. Civilians are confident that their families will not suffer the losses of their enemies. Most civilians who have experienced war however, come to know that war only means to reduce profits and production, bringing only pain, suffering, and agony down the road. But nonetheless, these civilians have been convinced that their experts have exhausted all other diplomatic avenues and have come up empty handed. The leaders come back to say “Sorry, war is inevitable. Prepare for war,” and the civilians feel they have no other choice.

    How many times have you heard someone say that it is in our “human nature,” to go to war? That the human species is violent and war like and there is nothing that we can do about it? That might makes right, to the winner goes the spoils?

    To say that it is in our human nature to kill others and that war is inevitable perpetuates the myth that war is forever our way. It is not our nature to kill others who don’t agree with us or who think differently from ourselves. But, it is our human nature to be fearful of others who have opposing ideas or who are different from ourselves. This fear may go in two directions: Our fear may sway into curiosity or it may sway into anger and violence.

    Another trait of our “human nature” is to divide ourselves into leaders and followers. Leaders can choose to go to war for entire populations and will not hesitate to call upon the followers to do the dirty work. It is not our human nature to go to war, but it is in our human nature to be led into war.

    Therefore, if we can be led into war, we can be led into peace.

    People are not warlike creatures. It is the random individual who sees value in herding the masses into violence. Every war is lead by someone who has convinced a critical mass of people that war is the only option. This is true with either side of any war or violent conflict. And, it is the same for peace. In any conflict that has not escalated into violence or where violence has ceased, a leader has led a critical mass of people to great change.

    The war in the Middle East is being perpetuated not because Israel and Arab leaders can’t come to an agreement, but because the concept of peace is being used incorrectly. The myth of peace begins within the very roots of the Judeo-Christian religion. Peace in this religious sense is an unattainable time/place. Peace is symbolized by the phrase, “when the lion lays down with the lamb,” which indicates that all life on Earth will be as one, living in harmony for the rest of all eternity.

    This peace does not exist, nor will it ever exist on this Earth inhabited by our wonderfully fallible human species. Peace is not the cessation of conflict, and a resulting agreement in totality. For the Mideast, the lion may never lay down with the lamb. Peace is a continuing evolving process that produces nonviolent results. Peace can revert to war or it can be sustained through constant communication, but it can never be stagnant or absolute.

    Peace begins when violence ends. That doesn’t mean that the conflicting ideas will suddenly disappear. It means that when people stop doing violence to each other-stop killing-negotiations can begin. In the simplest terms, peace is a process where no one is dying from an act of aggression. This is a real living peace that is attainable and quite possible when built upon the hard work of conflict resolution and diplomacy. Peace is not a time/place. Peace is a process that is ongoing and never without tension.
    *Dane Spencer, a Landscape Architect by profession, has been active with peace issues since 1986 when he became involved with the Seattle/Tashkent Peace Park. Constructed in the fourth largest city in the Soviet Union and the capital of Uzbekistan, the Peace Park is an example of citizens working together to promote diplomacy instead of tired war rhetoric and cold war politics. Recent U.S. posturing has rekindled Dane’s interest in the promotion of non-violence and his contemplation of peace.

  • Peace Proposal: Bring in the Children

    We receive many positive proposals for peace from friends and readers of the Sunflower and our wagingpeace.org web site. I want to share some of them from time to time with a broader audience in the hope that they may spark your ideas and actions. Here is one from Janie, a mother in Philadelphia. She begins by observing that “the world seems to be falling apart” and notes that the format of international meetings hardly changes and the results are generally minimal. “What are we to do?” she asks.

    She answers her question this way: “When things don’t work out with a child, a new tactic is in order, and various tactics are attempted until the right one surfaces and the final breakthrough is accomplished.” Based on her experience, she makes the following proposal:

    “Why doesn’t someone initiate at the next world conference for anything (nuclear disarmament, environment, peace in the Middle East, etc.) that each representative brings to the meeting a grandchild (under the age of about 7 years) and if no grandchild fits this category then a grandniece/nephew or any child that one is extremely fond of?”

    “I think the results would be alarming, surprising,” she writes. “Representatives to these meetings come with their egos, agendas, power, etc. No wonder nothing much is achieved. Get some children in there and what will happen right off the bat is that no one’s heart remains with quite the same hardness and impenetrability. The egos become a little less, the feeling of nationalism decreases a notch. My religion, your religion doesn’t quite hold the power it had. Why? Because the hearts of children have the power, tremendous power to melt the heart, anyone’s heart.”

    She concludes: “So that’s my contribution to conflict resolution, the peace process, disarmament put the future generations before these people, put their very own loved ones, vulnerable ones, sweet and innocent ones in their face and maybe things could get moving to secure a world that they deserve. I am so very serious about this. Is it not worth a try?”

    Of course, it is worth a try. We need leaders who think and act as if they are in the very presence of future generations. We need leaders who are able to shift their thinking and actions from representing powerful corporate interests to representing people and particularly the children who, after all, are the future. We need leaders who, like the native Americans, think of the seventh generation in the future when they make decisions.

    The problem, of course, is how to get a great idea like Janie’s implemented. It seems clear that it would change the tone and tenor of international meetings concerned with peace, disarmament, human rights, the environment, etc. It is difficult to move entrenched leaders, particularly those that seem indebted to vested interests. Perhaps the best way to implement an idea like this is for the children themselves to make their voices heard and to demand a seat at the table.

    I encourage you to talk this idea over with friends and family, including your children and grandchildren. Perhaps we should withhold our votes from leaders who do not make decisions as if in the presence of future generations and who would not be willing to bring children into the halls of government and to international meetings to determine whether it is possible to live in peace with our planet and each other.

     

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • For a lasting peace in Iraq

    Originally Published in The Jordan Times

    When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers. Two nations like the United States and Iraq have unlimited potential for rendering irreversible damage to each other, to the environment and to the innocent people who get trampled underfoot in the stampede of war.

    As a pacifist, I do not endorse violence.

    But let’s imagine for a moment that I went along with the idea that removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a good idea, that this action would decrease the cycle of violence in the world, and that it were a decent and honourable thing to do.

    Imagine that we got rid of Saddam. Then what?

    There are still 23 million people living in Iraq, so long as we did not kill a significant number of them in dethroning the infamous leader of the Ba’ath party. Among the Iraqis left standing are young men and women who have grown up in a decidedly anti-American environment, who have been nutritionally deprived since conscious memory and who are living daily with the threat of future bombings which have dotted the landscape, virtually escaping Western media reports for the past eleven years.

    Are we naive to think that this same underdeveloped population that has endured hellishly hot summers, putrid water and abominable health conditions will now embrace American presence and show gratitude for our reinvigorated military effort against them?

    Imagine for a moment that we stopped finger-pointing and blaming Saddam for starving his people for the past eleven years. Imagine that we stopped blaming a recalcitrant Sanctions Committee and policy making team from the State Department. Imagine that we viewed the humanitarian crisis in Iraq simply as people in need. The unending, maddening seclusion maintained by the world community could then be addressed.

    What will we do for these civilian Iraqis with whom we have no argument, the unseen innocent survivors of an eleven-year siege?

    A lasting peace plan in Iraq would have to begin by addressing the immediate needs of the average Iraqi people — their access to potable water, their educational infrastructure, healthcare system, their agriculture and oil industries — as well as their access to interstate and international travel. Restrictions on travelling to and from Iraq must be amended so that a dialogue may begin between Iraqis and other cultures throughout the world, starting with study abroad and student exchange programmes.

    In Iraq, doctors need vaccines, syringes with needles, X-ray film and blood bags. Teachers need books and pencils. Children need shoes and a happy childhood. Nursing mothers need proper nutrition to provide a healthy start for young lives. Iraqis need a wider array of food options and nutritional intake other than the lentils and rice available under the oil-for-food programme.

    Iraq needs an infusion of currency, a way to pay its citizens who desire to work, achieve and fulfil the demands of providing for their families. Immediately, Iraq needs a plan to rebuild its infrastructure — the water and sewage treatment plants and electrical facilities so that air conditioning and ceiling fans function when the temperature is 140 degrees.

    We must accept responsibility for the life-altering consequences of our policies on people who should not have been targeted.

    The world community, led by the United Nations, must apologise formally and publicly to the families who have lost loved ones as a result of the sanctions and no-fly-zone bombing campaigns in the North and south of Iraq. We must offer our sincerest condolences for our complicity in the crimes that killed more than half a million children.

    Unless we do this, the civilian Iraqis who are not the enemy will have every justification for taking every opportunity to avenge the egregious wrongs done against them.

    Gandhi tells a story about a wise man meditating by a river. A scorpion in a tree repeatedly falls into the water, and the wise man rescues him each time. And each time, the scorpion stings him. Another man sees this drama played out several times and approaches the wise man, asking why he continues to save the scorpion and risk being stung every time? “It is his nature to sting,” says the wise man. “I am a human. It is my nature to save.”

    Iraq needs no new war, no more bombs. They need simple human-to-human outreach. That is the right thing to do.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and travelled to Iraq last July with Chicago-based Voices in the Wilderness. She contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

  • Peace and Nuclear Disarmament: A Call to Action

    Speech by Dennis Kucinich

    “. . . Come my friends, ’tis not too late to seek a newer world,” . . . Alfred Lord Tennyson

    If you believe that humanity has a higher destiny, if you believe we can evolve, and become better than we are; if you believe we can overcome the scourge of war and someday fulfill the dream of harmony and peace on earth, let us begin the conversation today. Let us exchange our ideas. Let us plan together, act together and create peace together. This is a call for common sense, for peaceful, non-violent citizen action to protect our precious world from widening war and from stumbling into a nuclear catastrophe.

    The climate for conflict has intensified, with the struggle between Pakistan and India, the China-Taiwan tug of war, and the increased bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians. United States’ troop deployments in the Philippines, Yemen, Georgia, Columbia and Indonesia create new possibilities for expanded war. An invasion of Iraq is planned. The recent disclosure that Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya are considered by the United States as possible targets for nuclear attack catalyzes potential conflicts everywhere.

    These crucial political decisions promoting increased military actions, plus a new nuclear first-use policy, are occurring without the consent of the American people, without public debate, without public hearings, without public votes. The President is taking Congress’s approval of responding to the Sept. 11 terrorists as a license to flirt with nuclear war.

    “Politics ought to stay out of fighting a war,” the President has been quoted as saying on March 13th 2002. Yet Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution explicitly requires that Congress take responsibility when it comes to declaring war. This President is very popular, according to the polls. But polls are not a substitute for democratic process. Attributing a negative connotation here to politics or dismissing constitutionally mandated congressional oversight belies reality: Spending $400 billion a year for defense is a political decision. Committing troops abroad is a political decision. War is a political decision. When men and women die on the battlefield that is the result of a political decision. The use of nuclear weapons, which can end the lives of millions, is a profound political decision. In a monarchy there need be no political decisions. In a democracy, all decisions are political, in that they derive from the consent of the governed.

    In a democracy, budgetary, military and national objectives must be subordinate to the political process. Before we celebrate an imperial presidency, let it be said that the lack of free and open political process, the lack of free and open political debate, and the lack of free and open political dissent can be fatal in a democracy.

    We have reached a moment in our country’s history where it is urgent that people everywhere speak out as president of his or her own life, to protect the peace of the nation and world within and without. We should speak out and caution leaders who generate fear through talk of the endless war or the final conflict. We should appeal to our leaders to consider that their own bellicose thoughts, words and deeds are reshaping consciousness and can have an adverse effect on our nation. Because when one person thinks: fight! he or she finds a fight. One faction thinks: war! and starts a war. One nation thinks: nuclear! and approaches the abyss. And what of one nation which thinks peace, and seeks peace?

    Neither individuals nor nations exist in a vacuum, which is why we have a serious responsibility for each other in this world. It is also urgent that we find those places of war in our own lives, and begin healing the world through healing ourselves. Each of us is a citizen of a common planet, bound to a common destiny. So connected are we, that each of us has the power to be the eyes of the world, the voice of the world, the conscience of the world, or the end of the world. And as each one of us chooses, so becomes the world.

    Each of us is architect of this world. Our thoughts, the concepts. Our words, the designs. Our deeds, the bricks and mortar of our daily lives. Which is why we should always take care to regard the power of our thoughts and words, and the commands they send into action through time and space.

    Some of our leaders have been thinking and talking about nuclear war. In the past week there has been much news about a planning document which describes how and when America might wage nuclear war. The Nuclear Posture Review recently released to the media by the government:

    1. Assumes that the United States has the right to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
    2. Equates nuclear weapons with conventional weapons.
    3. Attempts to minimize the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.
    4. Promotes nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack.

    Some dismiss this review as routine government planning. But it becomes ominous when taken in the context of a war on terrorism which keeps expanding its boundaries, rhetorically and literally. The President equates the “war on terrorism” with World War II. He expresses a desire to have the nuclear option “on the table.” He unilaterally withdraws from the ABM treaty. He seeks $8.9 billion to fund deployment of a missile shield. He institutes, without congressional knowledge, a shadow government in a bunker outside our nation’s Capitol. He tries to pass off as arms reduction, the storage of, instead of the elimination of, nuclear weapons.

    Two generations ago we lived with nuclear nightmares. We feared and hated the Russians who feared and hated us. We feared and hated the “godless, atheistic” communists. In our schools, we dutifully put our head between our legs and practiced duck-and-cover drills. In our nightmares, we saw the long, slow arc of a Soviet missile flash into our very neighborhood. We got down on our knees and prayed for peace. We surveyed, wide eyed, pictures of the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We supported the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We knew that if you “nuked” others you “nuked” yourself.

    The splitting of the atom for destructive purposes admits a split consciousness, the compartmentalized thinking of Us vs. Them, the dichotomized thinking, which spawns polarity and leads to war. The proposed use of nuclear weapons, pollutes the psyche with the arrogance of infinite power. It creates delusions of domination of matter and space. It is dehumanizing through its calculations of mass casualties. We must overcome doomthinkers and sayers who invite a world descending, disintegrating into a nuclear disaster. With a world at risk, we must find the bombs in our own lives and disarm them. We must listen to that quiet inner voice which counsels that the survival of all is achieved through the unity of all.

    We must overcome our fear of each other, by seeking out the humanity within each of us. The human heart contains every possibility of race, creed, language, religion, and politics. We are one in our commonalities. Must we always fear our differences? We can overcome our fears by not feeding our fears with more war and nuclear confrontations. We must ask our leaders to unify us in courage.

    We need to create a new, clear vision of a world as one. A new, clear vision of people working out their differences peacefully. A new, clear vision with the teaching of nonviolence, nonviolent intervention, and mediation. A new, clear vision where people can live in harmony within their families, their communities and within themselves. A new clear vision of peaceful coexistence in a world of tolerance.

    At this moment of peril we must move away from fear’s paralysis. This is a call to action: to replace expanded war with expanded peace. This is a call for action to place the very survival of this planet on the agenda of all people, everywhere. As citizens of a common planet, we have an obligation to ourselves and our posterity. We must demand that our nation and all nations put down the nuclear sword. We must demand that our nation and all nations:

    Abide by the principles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    Stop the development of new nuclear weapons.
    Take all nuclear weapons systems off alert.
    Persist towards total, worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    Our nation must:
    Revive the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty.
    Sign and enforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
    Abandon plans to build a so-called missile shield.
    Prohibit the introduction of weapons into outer space.

    We are in a climate where people expect debate within our two party system to produce policy alternatives. However both major political parties have fallen short. People who ask “Where is the Democratic Party?” and expect to hear debate may be disappointed. When peace is not on the agenda of our political parties or our governments then it must be the work and the duty of each citizen of the world. This is the time to organize for peace. This is the time for new thinking. This is the time to concieve of peace as not simply being the absence of violence, but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness. This is the time to concieve of peace as respect, trust, and integrity. This is the time to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness which compels violence at a personal, group, national or international levels. This is the time to develop a new compassion for others and ourselves.

    When terrorists threaten our security, we must enforce the law and bring terrorists to justice within our system of constitutional justice, without undermining the very civil liberties which permits our democracy to breathe. Our own instinct for life, which inspires our breath and informs our pulse, excites our capacity to reason. Which is why we must pay attention when we sense a threat to survival.

    That is why we must speak out now to protect this nation, all nations, and the entire planet and:
    Challenge those who believe that war is inevitable.
    Challenge those who believe in a nuclear right.
    Challenge those who would build new nuclear weapons.
    Challenge those who seek nuclear re-armament.
    Challenge those who seek nuclear escalation.
    Challenge those who would make of any nation a nuclear target.
    Challenge those who would threaten to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations.
    Challenge those who would break nuclear treaties.
    Challenge those who think and think about nuclear weapons, to think about peace.

    It is practical to work for peace. I speak of peace and diplomacy not just for the sake of peace itself. But, for practical reasons, we must work for peace as a means of achieving permanent security. It is similarly practical to work for total nuclear disarmament, particularly when nuclear arms do not even come close to addressing the real security problems which confront our nation, witness the events of September 11, 2001.

    We can make war archaic. Skeptics may dismiss the possibility that a nation which spends $400 billion a year for military purposes can somehow convert swords into plowshares. Yet the very founding and the history of this country demonstrates the creative possibilities of America. We are a nation which is known for realizing impossible dreams. Ours is a nation which in its second century abolished slavery, which many at the time considered impossible. Ours is a nation where women won the right to vote, which many at the time considered impossible. Ours is a nation which institutionalized the civil rights movement, which many at the time considered impossible. If we have the courage to claim peace, with the passion, the emotion and the integrity with which we have claimed independence, freedom and, equality we can become that nation which makes non-violence an organizing principle in our society, and in doing so change the world.

    That is the purpose of HR 2459. It is a bill to create a Department of Peace. It envisions new structures to help create peace in our homes, in our families, in our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our cities, and in our nation. It aspires to create conditions for peace within and to create conditions for peace worldwide. It considers the conditions which cause people to become the terrorists of the future, issues of poverty, scarcity and exploitation. It is practical to make outer space safe from weapons, so that humanity can continue to pursue a destiny among the stars. HR 3616 seeks to ban weapons in space, to keep the stars a place of dreams, of new possibilities, of transcendence.

    We can achieve this practical vision of peace, if we are ready to work for it.
    People worldwide need to be meet with likeminded people, about peace and nuclear disarmament, now.
    People worldwide need to gather in peace, now.
    People worldwide need to march and to pray for peace, now.
    People worldwide need to be connecting with each other on the web, for peace, now.

    We are in a new era of electronic democracy, where the world wide web, numerous web sites and bulletin boards enable new organizations, exercising freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, to spring into being instantly. Thespiritoffreedom.com is such a web site. It is dedicated to becoming an electronic forum for peace, for sustainability, for renewal and for revitalization. It is a forum which strives for the restoration of a sense of community through the empowerment of self, through commitment of self to the lives of others, to the life of the community, to the life of the nation, to the life of the world.

    Where war making is profoundly uncreative in its destruction, peacemaking can be deeply creative. We need to communicate with each other the ways in which we work in our communities to make this a more peaceful world. I welcome your ideas at dkucinich@aol.com or at www.thespiritoffreedom.com. We can share our thoughts and discuss ways in which we have brought or will bring them into action.

    Now is the time to think, to take action and use our talents and abilities to create peace:
    in our families.
    in our block clubs.
    in our neighborhoods.
    in our places of worship.
    in our schools and universities.
    in our labor halls.
    in our parent-teacher organizations.

    Now is the time to think, speak, write, organize and take action to create peace as a social imperative, as an economic imperative, and as a political imperative. Now is the time to think, speak, write, organize, march, rally, hold vigils and take other nonviolent action to create peace in our cities, in our nation and in the world. And as the hymn says, “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.”

    This is the work of the human family, of people all over the world demanding that governments and non-governmental actors alike put down their nuclear weapons. This is the work of the human family, responding in this moment of crisis to protect our nation, this planet and all life within it. We can achieve both nuclear disarmament and peace. As we understand that all people of the world are interconnected, we can achieve both nuclear disarmament and peace. We can accomplish this through upholding an holistic vision where the claims of all living beings to the right of survival are recognized. We can achieve both nuclear disarmament and peace through being a living testament to a Human Rights Covenant where each person on this planet is entitled to a life where he or she may consciously evolve in mind, body and spirit.

    Nuclear disarmament and peace are the signposts toward the uplit path of an even brighter human condition wherein we can through our conscious efforts evolve and reestablish the context of our existence from peril to peace, from revolution to evolution. Think peace. Speak peace. Act peace. Peace.

  • The Message of the Sunflowers: A Magic Symbol of Peace

    Dedicated to the Children of the World Who Will Sow the Sunflower Seeds of Peace

    Once upon a time the earth was even more beautiful than it is today. The water was pure and deep, reflecting within itself the sunlight which gave life to all the creatures beneath the waves.

    The earth was green with many kinds of trees and plants. These gave food and shelter to the birds, the animals, and to all mankind. At night the air was so clear that the starlight gave a glow almost as bright as the moon.

    The people of the earth lived close to nature. They understood it and honored it and never took more than what they needed from it. The people lived in peace so they prospered and began to build many nations all around the world according to nature’s climate.

    But one day, a terrible thing happened. A strange spirit of greed entered the hearts of mankind. People began to be jealous of one another, and they were not satisfied will all the good things they already had. The nations wanted more and more of everything: more land, more water, more resources. They squeezed precious minerals from the earth to build terrible weapons to defend their nations from other greedier nations. They killed one another. They polluted the air and the water with poisons. Nature began to die. This is called war. War is ugly. It destroys love and hope and peace.

    Then one day a magical thing occurred. The birds of the air, the animals of the land, and the creatures beneath the waters came to an agreement: if they were to survive, something would have to be done to stop these wars. Only through peace could their world survive.

    “We cannot speak the human language,” they declared, “and mankind can no longer understand ours. We must find among us a symbol of peace so brilliant that all who see it will stop and remember that peace and sharing is beautiful.”

    “I am what you need,” said a golden sunflower. “I am tall and bright. My leaves are food for the animals, my yellow petals can turn plain cloth to gold, my seeds are many and are used for food by all living beings. Yet, the seeds I drop upon the ground can take root and I will grow again and again. I can be your symbol of peace.”

    All nature rejoiced, and it was decided that the birds would each take one sunflower seed and that they would fly over every nation and plant the seed in the earth as a gift. The seeds took root and grew, and the sunflowers multiplied.

    Wherever the sunflowers grew, there seemed to be a special golden glow in the air. The people could not ignore such a magical sight.

    Soon they began to understand the message of the sunflowers so they decided to destroy all of their terrible weapons and to put an end to the greed and to the fear of war. They chose the sunflower as a symbol of peace and new life for all the world to recognize and understand.

    A ceremony was celebrated by planting a whole field of sunflowers. Artists painted pictures of the sunflowers, writers wrote about them, and the people of the world were asked to plant more sunflowers seeds as a symbol of remembrance.

    All nature rejoiced once more as the golden sunflowers stood tall with their faces turned eastward to the rising sun, then following the sun until the setting in the west.

    They gave their goodness to the world so that everyone who sees a sunflower will know that the golden light of peace is beautiful.

    Sunflowers have become the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons. After Ukraine gave up its last nuclear warhead, the Defense Ministers of the US, Russia and Ukraine met on a former Ukrainian missile base, June 4, 1996. They celebrated by scattering sunflower seeds and planting sunflowers. Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry said, “Sunflowers instead of missiles in the soil will ensure peace for future generations.”

  • A Peacemaker These Days

    Originally Published in Common Dreams

    What makes a peacemaker these days? Apparently with the nomination of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize, being a peacemaker means that you can drop bombs on civilians, offer few options for reconciliation to your enemies and reduce spending on social services in favor of funding an already disproportionate military budget.

    I try to explain to my students who take “Solutions to Violence,” a semester-long course on peacemaking for high schools that pacifism works and offer evidence to that fact. Nominating Bush and Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize undermines this effort significantly. So as their teacher, I have tried to note a few characteristics of peacemakers which might help to clarify the quandary we as a global community face when people who fit more in the category of war criminals are heralded as peace heroes.

    Someone seeking to be a peacemaker uses violence only as a last resort. Violence has a very simple dynamic: might makes right. Nonviolence on the other hand uses creativity with unlimited possibilities to resolve problems and seeks to evoke the human spirit in their enemies, that undeniable conscience which ought never be shelved. Alexander Solzhenitsyn speaks of the futility of separating the evil people from the good people and destroying them – the same language George W. Bush is using to delineate the evildoers from the benevolent – only Solzhenitsyn truly knows that the line between good and evil runs through each human heart. When we desire to kill evil, we commit to killing a piece of ourselves.

    I continue to remind my students of Gandhi’s message that the goal is not to bring our enemies to their knees but to their senses. To do this, we must offer ways for them to save face, rather than give them ultimatums which back them into a corner and force them to lash out in frustration of lack of options. To grant our enemies the dignity they are due as human beings is to take a step toward reconciliation. We can love the evildoer while hating the evil act.

    Many religious leaders have blessed many wars throughout the years, and just last week I heard a Catholic priest at an interfaith dialogue making excuses for the “Just War Theory.” My students sitting near me beckoned for my response. On a sheet of scrap paper I asked them if Jesus embodied “Just War Theory” – if his actions represented justifications for hatred and retaliation, or if his message called us to a greater level of understanding. Walking with our enemies. Loving them because they are difficult to love. Showing compassion and mercy. Where is this dialogue happening nowadays in our war frenzy? Dare we speak out for moderation – or are even clergy being swept away in this flood of madness and hatred? Certainly the voices of peace and justice have been drowned in the swiftly moving tide.

    A peacemaker these days would not continue to bomb Iraq while calling for an end to terrorism and violence. In the past two weeks, the United States has bombed Iraq four times, while calling on the United Nations to keep their negotiations with Iraq “short”. Talk is cheap, I suppose, when we have bombing to maintain! A peacemaker would allocate more than enough resources so that housing, health care and education never went needy. Dr. King said that any nation spending more on its military than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. We are already there.

    It’s quite handy for our government to do this, though. We cut funding for social spending and overwhelm the Pentagon’s budget. This way, our students who are prone to fall through the cracks anyway will realize that there is no future for them in school, or in the workforce, and then believe that they have no other choice than to join the military. We’re eliminating options and free will under the guise of national security, underhandedly denying educations and futures to young people who deserve them. We are killing the dreams of many young people who want to create better lives for themselves and their families.

    The most important quality of a peacemaker these days, I believe, can be summed up in a line from the Manifesto by Wendell Berry on the Mad Farmer Liberation Front: Be joyful even though you have considered all the facts. A peacemaker knows the obstacles ahead. A peacemaker cries with the families of those killed and labeled ‘collateral damage’. A peacemaker lives the spirit of peacemaking and is not afraid to take risks in the name of justice. A peacemaker these days aligns with the unpopular causes, speaks up for the people we’d rather hate, and questions the authority which condones cultural genocide, mass murder and rampant militarism.

    This is what my students deserve to know about peacemaking.
    *Leah C. Wells teaches high school classes on nonviolence and serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She traveled last July and August with Voices in the Wilderness to Iraq and condemns the economic sanctions as genocidal.

  • Overcoming Hardships in Working for Peace

    Overcoming Hardships in Working for Peace

    When you work for peace or any other aspect of social change, there are often hardships to overcome. You must believe deeply that what you are doing is right, or else you may become discouraged and give up. I have found that there are no easy solutions to problems involving social change. When you commit yourself to creating a better world, you are most likely committing yourself to a lifetime of effort.

    To succeed, you must be willing to persevere in your efforts and you must keep a positive, hopeful attitude. In this work, it is often unclear who you are reaching or whether change is occurring. Thus, you must trust that your work for a better world matters. Sometimes change is occurring under the surface as a result of many individual actions, and suddenly the results become clear as in the cases of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa.

    The most rewarding life is one in which there is a major element of serving others. Many people find a way to do this in their lives. Of course, there are many ways in which an individual can be of service to others. Some of the biggest problems at the global level, though, go largely unaddressed by most of us, and I think this is an area where young people can make important contributions.

    We have many global problems, but we are lacking global institutions powerful enough to effectively address such problems as global terrorism, human rights abuses, global warming, the ozone layer, pollution of the oceans and rivers, arms trade, child soldiers, war, the weaponization of space, and nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Finding a way to participate in solving these and other global problems is one of the great challenges of our time.

    Global problems require global solutions. They also require World Citizens who identify with and give their loyalty to humanity and the web of life. Patriotism takes on new dimensions and becomes Humatriotism, loyalty to humankind. To change the world requires a new kind of thinking and new loyalties that transcend the nation-state. These viewpoints may put one at odds with some segments of society, but if some individuals do not have the vision and the courage to venture beyond the borders of conformity then change will never occur.

    When I resisted the Vietnam War and refused to fight in that war, it created a rift with my wife’s parents, who thought I was being unpatriotic. It was a difficult conflict within our family, but it was essential for my integrity to do what I believed was right. I believed that in matters of war, the highest guide must be one’s conscience. I followed my conscience and have never regretted it. I realized that the state did not have power over me to decide if I should participate in war. It was up to me to choose, although I had to be ready to pay the price. Years later, my wife’s parents and some of their friends, who had so strongly opposed what I had done, told me that they understood that what I did was right and they were wrong about US involvement in Vietnam.

    The lesson that I learned from this was the importance of acting on principle rather than expediency, the importance of following my conscience and doing what I knew in my heart was right. There have been many other times in my life when I have faced hardships while working for peace. I’ve always taken solace in the understanding that I was doing what I believed in deeply. I have also been helped tremendously on my journey and in facing hardships by a loving a supporting wife.

    If you can follow the path of conscience and embrace the world, you can help create a future built on human dignity for all. We all have a choice. I hope that you will choose conscience, and act with compassion, courage and commitment to create a better world.
    *David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and has served as president of the Foundation since 1982.

  • Advice for the soon-to-be or newly graduated student on choosing a career with a conscience

    Dear Friend,

    So you are graduating soon and are starting to think about your role in the world, about survival, about independence and about what you were put here on this planet to accomplish…a hefty task to undertake with all that must be going through your mind at this time. Take it or leave it, I have some unsolicited advice for you on how to choose a career that satisfies what you are most yearning for and what will best serve humanity.

    I’ll start with myself.

    I have never been certain what exactly I wanted to be “when I grow up.” I used to listen to my friends and classmates who were so certain about their future careers, about people who went to college and graduated with a degree in something important that they could use in whatever career path they chose. After high school, I was not sure what I wanted to study, but I knew I was a good writer, a good thinker and a person with a good conscience. This pointed me in the direction of Linguistics. Today I do not formally use my degree; I am a teacher, a writer, an organizer and an activist for issues of peace and justice. My job has diffuse boundaries and unlimited resources for lesson plans, for articles, for nonviolence campaigns and for op-ed pieces.

    When I was three I was asked to leave the Montessori pre-school I was attending in Des Moines, IA (their loss). I couldn’t follow their rules. This is a fairly good starting point for investigating how I have arrived at my present job status. At three, I was an articulate child, an avid reader with a wide vocabulary and an astute observer of human behavior. I liked being around people and I liked new experiences and challenges. I became bored easily and sought adventures at every turn. Indiana Jones was my hero – a respectable professor by day, a swashbuckling treasure hunter by night.

    The work I am doing now is extraordinarily fulfilling and still is grounded in the fundamentals of what I knew to be true about myself as a child. I serve as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation where I write articles and a curriculum on teaching peace, I teach high school classes on nonviolence, I organize marches and events for national nonviolence groups, I travel to distant lands like Iraq with Voices in the Wilderness and I have the ability to garden, run, cook and travel to visit friends all over the country as well. Every day brings a new idea, a new predicament, a new perspective. For me, this is the perfect job at this point in my life, and I believe that there is a “recipe” for finding jobs with a conscience that those nearing graduation can draw from. Here are my ideas:

    • You must find out where you want to be physically on the planet. If you love a warm climate, don’t choose your “perfect” job in Alaska. Don’t underestimate the effect the weather, temperature and surrounding geography will have on your personal and professional life.
    • Find out what you like to do. Some jobs for people do not exist in the “help wanted” ads in the newspaper (try to find my job description in your local paper!) Do not be discouraged if you cannot find the perfect job for you just by searching the Sunday Employment section of your newspaper. Jobs with a conscience are hidden jewels, like pearls, that you must tease out of hiding. While daunting at times, the reward for finding a job you love and that meets your needs is greater than you can imagine.
    • Learn from your s/heroes. My first shero was Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman doctor. She did what people thought could not be done. I felt a deep connection to that ideology and constantly pursued goals in my life that defied expectations. Make a list of the people you admire and list the reasons why. This investigation can be tremendously enlightening and may help articulate qualities of yourself which define your passions. Never assume that you can’t make a career out of doing what you love.
    • Watch the signs in your life. The world sends us signals, hints, and messages in funny forms that unless we are observant, we tend to miss. Do not dismiss the coincidences and the happenstances that bend your thinking in a new direction, that wake you up to a new idea.
    • No law says that you must stick with your first job for a certain amount of time. You can change your mind, move on, move out, move up and move forward when you feel the need to grow or feel the pangs of conscience creeping up! My first job out of college was working for the World Bank, which is interesting because now many of my friends in activism are working against this gigantic institution. I feel quite privileged to have an intimate understanding of the inner-workings of the “WB” as I fondly used to call it, and learning about the people on the inside, hearing their stories and realizing that for a seemingly untouchable powerhouse, the World Bank actually has some significant Achilles’ Heels. Hindsight is 20/20.
    • Brainstorming is an important creative endeavor when determining your future and vocation. Here is a brainstorm of mine: op-ed writer, volunteer, science teacher, math teacher, history teacher, french teacher, food drive organizer, talent show coordinator, jail filler, puppetista, hall director, resident advisor, office grunt, grantwriter, nonprofit founder, affinity group member, social worker, GED teacher, campaign organizer, fundraiser, graffiti artist, musician, vagabond, documentary filmmaker, VORP mediator…the list goes on and on…
    • The following list of people are some of my heroes and hold jobs that one day I might like to try on for size:

    Brendan Greene, union organizer for Pictsweet mushroom workers, United Farm Workers, www.ufw.org

    Margaret Oberon, Ventura County Catholic Chaplain, Detention Ministry

    Katya Komisaruk, lawyer for activists, http://www.lawcollective.org

    Michael Beer, Peace Brigades International and Nonviolence International

    Daniel Hunter, nonviolence trainer, Training for Change, www.trainingforchange.org

    Propagandhi, musical group

    Jeff Guntzel, Iraq delegation leader with Voices in the Wilderness, www.vitw.org
    *Leah C. Wells teaches high school classes on nonviolence and serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She traveled last July and August with Voices in the Wilderness to Iraq and condemns the economic sanctions as genocidal.

  • Courage and Wisdom are Needed, Exceprt from the Christmas Message

    Fanatical hatred and the destructive power of evil struck the Western world this year with a shock that erodes our feelings of security and critically diminishes our sense of well-being. Human life is exceedingly vulnerable and modern society is very fragile, just exactly where it has created, with all of its luxury and cherished safety, a sense of impregnability.

    The lack of respect for life and death and the intolerance that feeds terrorism confront us with a world view that confounds us. God’s peace is ever foremost in all of the world’s religions. Respect for the sanctity of life is the cornerstone of every religion’s morality. Justice is everywhere recognized as the basis of human society. Solidarity is the universally accepted basis of coexistence.

    Despite this, history teaches us that no religion has been free of profanation and false preaching. Where ideologies and religious misinterpretations incite bigotry, promulgate hatred and stimulate aggression, tolerance ends. When the common good is desecrated and human rights are defiled, one must lay down clear limits. No concessions may be made with respect to the principles and norms of a state based on the rule of law.

    The principles of our democracy include, at a minimum, the recognition of diversity of convictions and respect for the beliefs of all. This means tolerance of the opinions and cultures of others. The maintenance of good relations requires that differences be recognized for what they are, and in the mutual search for balanced attitudes, the background of these differences be examined. No one may be absent from this dialogue.

    The problems of this world are so gigantic that some are paralysed by their own uncertainty. Courage and wisdom are needed to reach out above this sense of helplessness. Desire for vengeance against deeds of hatred offers no solution. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If we wish to choose the other path, we will have to search for ways to break the spiral of animosity.

    To fight evil one must also recognize one’s own responsibility. The values for which we stand must be expressed in the way we think of, and how we deal with, our fellow humans.

    From the Christmas Message 2001 of HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands