https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/queen_noor.pdf
Tag: peace
-
Nonviolence: Teacher Explores Finding Peaceful Paths In Life
Invoking the words of Gandhi and Thoreau, a young Ventura teacher is spreading the message of nonviolence to all who will listen.
Wearing a pin proclaiming “Victory over Violence,” 23-year-old Leah Wells leads a class in nonviolence at a downtown Ventura church. Her students are young, middle-aged and old, but they share a common goal: making peace.
Dressed smartly in pearls and a black skirt and sweater, Wells teaches the course after a full day as an English and French teacher at St. Bonaventure High School. She begins one evening with a video decrying violence. Her students, gathered in the basement of the Church of Religious Science, quietly watch it.
Its message is clear: violence is all around.“Everywhere you look, you see it,” the video says. “It’s in the school. It’s in the park. It’s everywhere.”
Students read a passage written by pacifist and folk singer Joan Baez. They discuss ways to calm angry people. Wells leads them in discussions touching on the death penalty and the economics of war. The evening culminates with a speech by Carol Rosin, a former defense company official who urges their help in keeping weapons out of space.
The course is structured around “Solutions to Violence,” a book developed by the Center for Teaching Peace in Washington, D.C.
Two years ago, Wells started working as an intern for the center’s founder, noted writer and teacher Colman McCarthy.
McCarthy wrote for the Washington Post for several years, but also is known for the nonviolence courses he developed to teach students how to resolve conflicts peacefully. His reach has extended from poor urban schools in East St. Louis to wealthy suburban schools in California, says an article in the nationally published Education Week.
“We are peace illiterates,” he told Education Week.
Leah Wells would like to change that in this corner of the world.
She wants to see courses on nonviolence offered in schools as well as juvenile detention centers in Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties.
“So many of the peace people are working with good kids, but we’ve got to focus on kids that are struggling,” she said.The Georgetown University graduate said she was inspired by her own parents. They taught her to do the right thing, that one’s word is one’s bond and that people should fight for justice, she said.
“Violence comes from fear, fear from misunderstanding, misunderstanding from ignorance,” Wells said. “Ignorance is addressed through education.”She has taught nonviolence classes at a high school near the White House and at a juvenile prison in Maryland, she said. Next fall she will be teaching an elective course in nonviolence at St. Bonaventure, assuming that 20 to 25 students at the Catholic school sign up for the semesterlong offering. That will mark the first time St. Bonaventure has offered such a course, said the principal, Brother Paul Horkan.
Wells said Los Angeles High School is already offering the course, and officials at various juvenile facilities are considering it.Such classes, though, are hardly ordinary. California schools offer training in conflict resolution to staff and students, but not usually as the separate courses that Wells envisions.
Bill White, administrator of the state Safe Schools and Violence Prevention Office, said schools usually offer conflict resolution as an extracurricular activity. Some of these peacemaking skills also are incorporated into other classes, he said.
“It’s not a stand-alone course,” White said. “I really don’t know how many of those there might be.”
Dealing with the approvals required by education and government does not seem to sway Wells’ fervor.
“She keeps pushing for what she wants,” Horkan said.
Recalling the words of Thoreau, she puts it another way.
“You are your own majority of one,” she said. -
The Earth Charter
PREAMBLE
We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.
Earth, Our Home
Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life’s evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.
The Global Situation
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous-but not inevitable.
The Challenges Ahead
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.
Universal Responsibility
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.
We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.
PRINCIPLES
I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE
1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.
a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.
b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.
a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.
b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.
a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.
b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.4. Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.
a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.
b. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth’s human and ecological communities.In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:
II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth’s life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.
c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.
d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.
f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.
b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.
c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.
d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.
e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.
a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.
b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.
d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.
e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.
f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.
a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.
b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.
c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.
b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.
c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.
c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.
d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.
b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.
c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.
b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.
c. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.
d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE
13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.
a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.
b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.
c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.
d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.
e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.
f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.
b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.
c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.
d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.
b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.
c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations.
b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.
c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.
f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.THE WAY FORWARD
As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.
This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.
Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.
In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.
Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.
-
The New Millennium: The Past As Prologue
It is perhaps a peculiar quality of human beings that we like to count things, and we seem to become particularly excited when our numbers end up with several zeros at the end. Such is the case with the year 2000, even though it is not exactly the turning of the millennium, which will take place as the year turns from 2000 to 2001. It is close enough, however, and it has its own set of problems, which have been characterized by the expression “Y2K.” I will return to that, but first I would like to offer a few observations to provide perspective on the past as a prologue to our current situation.
First, life has existed on Earth for some 4 billion years.
Second, humans have existed on Earth for only some 3 million years, less than 1/1000th of the existence of life on Earth.
Third, civilization and recorded history have existed for only some 10,000 years, barely a tick on the geological clock.
Fourth, the Nuclear Age began only some six decades ago with the first controlled fission reaction that was sustained under the bleachers of the stadium at the University of Chicago.
Fifth, less than 55 years ago, the first nuclear weapons were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, utterly destroying those cities and killing over 200,000 of their inhabitants.
Sixth, throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in a nuclear arms race that at its height saw the deployment of some 80,000 nuclear weapons, many of which were thousands of times more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Seventh, plutonium, which is the principal ingredient in nuclear weapons and did not exist as such until specifically created for nuclear weapons, will remain dangerous to humans and other forms of life for some 250,000 years. Even a microgram of plutonium, if inhaled, will lead to lung cancer, and we have created thousands of tons of plutonium by the fissioning of uranium for weapons and nuclear power.
Eighth, at the present time, ten years after the end of the Cold War, eight countries have a total of some 35,000 nuclear weapons, most of them in the arsenals of the United States and Russia. Due to the conditions of social disintegration in the former Soviet Union, there is increased concern that nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear materials might fall (or might already have fallen) into the possession of additional countries or criminals or terrorists.
From this very quick walk through time, we can reach some interesting conclusions.
First, in a relatively short period of time, humans have devised a means for their own annihilation.
Second, we have created radioactive poisons, such as the thousands of tons of plutonium, that will be a danger to humanity for some 25 times longer than civilization has existed.
We are now an endangered species, endangered by our own cleverness in taming the atom and using the power of the atom for weapons of mass destruction.
With our new knowledge has come the need for far higher levels of responsibility to prevent our self-destruction. As a species, we have done a poor job of accepting this responsibility.
Let us look at what we have done in the relatively recent past to try to deal with the challenge of nuclear weapons.
Nearly 30 years ago the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force. In that treaty, the non-nuclear weapons states promised not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. In return, the nuclear weapons states promised to engage in good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament. In other words, this treaty was a trade-off: non-proliferation for nuclear disarmament. For the most part, the non-proliferation part of the bargain has been kept. The nuclear disarmament part of the bargain has been arrogantly pushed aside by the nuclear weapons states.
Five years ago, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty held a Review and Extension Conference, as called for by the terms of the treaty. At that conference the treaty was extended indefinitely, although many states argued that an indefinite extension was equivalent to a blank check which should not be given to the nuclear weapons states to continue to flout the treaty provisions. At that time, certain additional promises were made: to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by 1996, to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and to “a determined pursuit” of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of their elimination.
A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996, but has yet to be ratified by the US, Russia, China, India or Pakistan. There has been no progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and there has been a noticeable lack of “determined pursuit” of nuclear disarmament. The START II agreement has not been ratified by the Russian Duma. In fact, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to move back the date for completing START II reductions from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2007. There has been no progress on START III. The US and Russia still maintain dangerous postures of launch on warning. Some 5,000 nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready for immediate launching.
The US still considers its nuclear arsenal to be the “cornerstone” of its security policy. It has fought against a NATO review of nuclear policy. It has fought against consideration of nuclear disarmament in the UN Conference on Disarmament. It has refused to consider a No First Use policy. Further, it has promoted policies such as the expansion of NATO and the development of a National Missile Defense system that have made the Russians feel more threatened and rely more heavily on their nuclear arsenal.
In 1996 the International Court of Justice said that any threat or use of nuclear weapons that would violate international humanitarian law would be illegal. This means that nuclear weapons cannot be threatened or used if they would fail to distinguish between combatants and civilians, or if they would cause unnecessary suffering to combatants. Since it would be impossible to use nuclear weapons in any manner that would not either grossly injure non-combatants or cause unnecessary suffering to combatants, any threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal. This ruling by the World Court has been largely ignored by the nuclear weapons states.
The Court also pointed out in its opinion that the effects of the use of nuclear weapons cannot be controlled in either time or space. We know, for example, that today people are continuing to suffer and die as a result of the radiation releases from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons that took place for four decades until the mid-1980s.
At the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a group of Non-Governmental Organizations from around the world lobbied for greater progress on nuclear disarmament. Disappointed by the outcome of the conference, they formed a global network, which is called Abolition 2000, to work for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Abolition 2000 is a citizens movement, which is now composed of some 1,400 citizen action groups in 89 countries. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is the International Contact for this global network.
Abolition 2000 has called for an international treaty to be concluded by the end of the year 2000 which would lead to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Its goal is to enter the 21st century with a treaty in place providing a firm commitment on the part of the nuclear weapons states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. As the year 2000 is approaching rapidly, this may seem like an unrealizable goal. But this is not necessarily the case.
Democracies respond to overwhelming citizen pressure. If such pressure were forthcoming in the United States, it could turn the tide. If we have continued complacency, then we will enter the 21st century with inertia and perhaps we will have to wait until a nuclear weapon destroys another city or many cities somewhere in the world before there is action to eliminate nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if Americans were to say, “Enough is enough,” and demand leadership from our government to obtain a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons, it could be done and it could be done rapidly.
At the present time our national security is based upon the illegal threat of nuclear weapons use that could result in the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people. We are all accomplices to this illegal threat. Were this threat ever to be carried out, we would be accomplices, willing or unwilling, to what the president of the World Court has described as the “ultimate evil.” If nuclear weapons are ever used again, by accident or design, it will be a greater crime than that committed by the Nazis during World War II. The German people were rightly terrified to challenge the Nazis. The American people have no such excuse. Nor can we claim ignorance. We are all parties to the threatened crime. And, as we learned at Nuremberg, superior orders do not constitute a defense.
Someone recently said to me, “I’m glad you’re working on this because I have other priorities.” That was not comforting. No one person is going to turn this country around. It will take all of us together. And all of us together can do it. As Jody Williams, the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for the Landmines Campaign, said, “We are the new superpower.” She didn’t mean the United States or any other powerful nation alone. She meant us – you, me, and millions like us. Together we are the new superpower, but only if we make our voices heard.
I encourage you to write to the President and your representatives in Congress and to raise the issue of nuclear threat in every campaign setting in the upcoming elections. Ask that nuclear weapons be taken off alert status (if for no other reason than to avoid the problems associated with Y2K). Ask that the US adopt a policy of No First Use. Ask that the US take leadership in negotiating an international treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention similar to what we already have for chemical and biological weapons, setting forth the steps for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Make the candidates discuss these issues. Make them declare where they stand on these issues.
In the final analysis, nuclear weapons are not weapons at all. They are the most terrible instruments of mass annihilation yet created by men. They are portable incinerators. They are illegal, immoral, and undemocratic. They have cost us some $6 trillion since the beginning of the Nuclear Age. More damaging still, they have cast a dark shadow over our consciences and our souls. I urge each of you to make your voice heard and to demand an end to the outrage of relying upon nuclear weapons for what they can never give to us — security.
Let us enter the 21st century with a commitment in place to abolish nuclear weapons. And if we cannot do it in the year 2000, let us recommit ourselves for the next year and as long as it takes to rid the world of this evil. In doing so, we will keep faith with all humanity that has preceded us and with all generations to follow. Perhaps most important, we will keep faith with ourselves and be, in the words of the great French writer, Albert Camus, “neither victims nor executioners.”
* David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
-
Stop Using Child Soldiers
“I would like to say to other child soldiers…please do not lose your childhood as well as your future.” -Abdi, former child soldier from Somalia.
There are an estimated three hundred thousand child soldiers around the world. Thousands of children 15 years of age and much younger are recruited every year in countries where contemporary conflicts are uprooting them from their childhood. The considerable numbers of child soldiers make one pause to think that the world is being sucked into a desolate moral vacuum, an endless void where children are now exploited as armed fighters. Angola recruits children at 17 and Uganda at 13 years of age as volunteers. The situation is urgent.
Child soldiers are considered to be all children under 18 according to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In reality, child soldiers are children young enough to lift a rifle. In 1998 alone, there were 35 major armed conflicts where children were used as soldiers. Violent conflict has always made victims of non-combatants, but now, more and more, the combatants are children.
Contemporary armed conflicts have increased the risks for children because of the proliferation of inexpensive light weapons, such as the Russian-made AK-47 or the American M-16 assault rifles, which are easy for children to carry and use. An AK-47, for example, can be easily assembled by a 10-year old boy. The international arms trade is largely unrestricted making assault rifles cheap and widely available in the poorest communities. In the Sub-Saharan area, for example, an AK-47 can be purchased for as little as six dollars on the streets. It is often suggested that too much money is spent for defense in both the developed and developing countries of the world, and that some of that money might instead be used to relieve hunger and to promote children’s survival and development. But, worldwide, many national budgets stay sharply skewed in favor of defense year after year. If security means the protection of our most precious assets, child survival should be high on the agenda of all defense departments. Why isn’t it? Perhaps in reality, the operational function of defense establishments is not so much to maintain the security of the country as a whole but to assure that the powerful remain in power. Rather than serving all their citizens’ interests, defense budgets serve the survival of the rich, not the children or the poor.
How are child soldiers recruited?
Governments in a few countries legally conscript children under 18. In the UK, teenagers who are 16 can enlist in the military for a three-to five-year-tour-of-duty. In the US, a 17-year-old can enlist in the Marines. In both countries these young soldiers can be sent to war zones.
Even where the legal minimum age is set at 18, the law is not necessarily a safeguard. Child soldiers may be kidnapped or forced by adults to join an army. Others may be forced to join armed groups to defend their families and villages.
Once recruited as soldiers, children are treated as adults. Children often serve as porters, carrying heavy loads such as ammunition or injured soldiers. Children are extensively used also as lookouts, messengers, and for common household and routine maintenance duties such as cleaning and assembling artillery. In Ugandan armies, children can volunteer at 13. They are forced to hunt for wild fruits and vegetables, loot food from gardens, plunder granaries, and perform guard duty.
Most of the children in armies come from conditions of poverty. These conditions may drive parents to offer their children for service or sell them into slavery. Children are also recruited in areas where there is a high level of illiteracy among their families and a strong prevalence of violence and ignorance in their communities. Most child soldiers, for example, never go to school throughout their childhood.
The enslavement of children into guerrilla groups is a serious issue addressed recently by an international labor group. In July 1999, the International Labor Organization (ILO) unanimously adopted Convention No.182 which prohibited and called for immediate action on the elimination of the worst forms of child labor, especially the “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.” The United States delegation to the ILO had opposed efforts to include a broad prohibition on child soldiers. Although trade unions and many governments supported a total ban on the participation of children in armed conflict, strong US pressure on the delegates to the ILO Convention resulted in the adoption of a much narrower, general prohibition on “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflicts.”
Physical, Psychological and Economic Harm
Uncertain food supply and nonexistent health care are the worst economic consequences that wars bring into the reality of children on a daily basis. During the 1990s, an estimated two million children were killed in armed conflicts. Countless others have been seriously injured or have been forced to witness or take part in horrifying acts of violence. The shock, trauma, or Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTS) is generally not professionally treated immediately, if ever.
Conflicts hurt children physically and psychologically. Children suffer the consequences of armed conflicts on their bodies because of the effects of maiming, torture, sexual violence or the multiple deprivations of war that expose them to hunger or disease. The psycho-social impacts of violence on children are as severe as physical wounds. Children respond to the stress of armed conflict with increased anxiety, developmental delays, sleep disturbance and nightmares, lack of appetite, withdrawn behavior, learning difficulties, and aggressive behavior.
International law — The Geneva Conventions
Humanitarian law focuses on situations of armed conflicts. Human rights law establishes rights that every individual should enjoy at all times, during both peace and war, such as the right to life, liberty and security.
The international humanitarian law of armed conflict is reflected in four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and two 1977 Protocols. The Fourth Geneva Convention, relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, is one of the main sources of protection for children. It prohibits not only murder, torture or mutilation of civilians, but also any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
In 1977, these Geneva Conventions were supplemented by two protocols that unite two main branches of international humanitarian law — the branch concerned with protection of vulnerable groups and the branch regulating the conduct of hostilities. Protocol I requires fighting parties in international armed conflicts to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians to ensure that the only legal targets of attack are military. Protocol II addresses non-international armed conflicts, that is to say, conflicts inside the borders of a nation. This protocol lists the fundamental rights of all who are not taking an active part in the hostilities, namely, the right to life, liberty and security of person. It also provides that children be given the care and aid they require for a normal childhood, including education and family reunion.
Human rights law establishes rights that every individual should enjoy at all times, during both peace and war. The obligations, which are incumbent upon every nation, are based on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In formal legal terms, the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights rests with nations, since they alone can become contracting parties to the relevant treaties.
Almost 190 states have agreed to the Geneva Conventions, making them the most widely ratified conventions in history. The majority of these states has also agreed to Protocol I and Protocol II. Although the United States has ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it has not ratified the two protocols, objecting to the nature of these protocols.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
The Convention on the Rights of the Child focuses on situations of armed conflicts and the impacts on children. It was adopted by the General Assembly in November 1989 as the most comprehensive and specific protection for children worldwide. The Convention recognizes a list of rights that apply during both peacetime and war, such as protection of the family; essential care and assistance; access to health, food and education; and the prohibition of torture, abuse or neglect.
Article 38 is known as the armed conflict article, but with regard to protection from recruitment it has little to offer. While the rest of the Convention is generally applicable to “every human being below the age of 18 years,” Article 38 makes a point of allowing children under 18 to take direct part in hostilities and to be recruited into a nation’s armed forces. It is all the more extraordinary because these restrictions are already embodied in international humanitarian law to which the article refers. Article 39 states that governments “…shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of…armed conflicts.” These articles, especially Article 38, call upon nations to respect international humanitarian law as a whole. On the other hand, these articles restate their provisions only on the age limits of a child soldier and, in actuality, offer no relief to an increasingly urgent situation. Three hundred thousand child soldiers — even one child soldier — are too many.
The Convention: a commitment or a farce?
In the ten years it took to negotiate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, many participating nations argued about the age limits. Both the United Arab Emirate and the United States did not want the minimum age for military recruitment to be 18. Currently the US accepts 17-year-olds with parental permission as voluntary recruits into the US Marines. According to the US Defense Department statistics, 17-year-olds make up less than one-half of 1% of all active US troops. The UK, which allows volunteer soldiers at 16 years, joined the US in its opposition. Some UK 16 year olds fought in the Falklands War and 200 were at the front in the Gulf War in 1991. The UK was even less ready than the US to make a compromise by raising the minimum age to 18.
By the conclusion of the negotiations, the US and UK positions prevailed, and Article 38 stated that governments “shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” The irony is that despite its winning many concessions from others in the negotiations and ultimately achieving its way on Articles 38 and 39, the UK signed and ratified the Convention in 1992, but has ignored its provisions. The United States still has not ratified the Convention.
In a letter made public on December 21, 1998, a broad group of US leaders called on President Clinton to support an international prohibition on the use of child soldiers. The letter, identifying the use of children as soldiers as “one of the most alarming and tragic trends in modern warfare,” was signed by the leaders of forty human rights, religious, peace, humanitarian, child welfare, veterans and professional organizations. Signers of the appeal included Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll Jr., US Navy (retired); Robert Muller, President of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation; Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the National Council of the Churches; Dr. David Pruitt, President of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Dr. William Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA; Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch; Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association; Randall Robinson, President of TransAfrica; Charles Lyons, President of the US Committee for UNICEF.
The debate on age continues and more efforts have been made by other countries. In August 1999, the Nordic Foreign Ministers from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, signed a declaration against the use of child soldiers. In this declaration the Nordic Foreign Ministers supported an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulating that anyone under the age of 18 years not be recruited into their armed forces nor allowed to take any part in hostilities. This optional protocol has not yet been added to the Convention.
On August 25, 1999 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1261 condemning the effects of war on children. The resolution strongly condemns the targeting of children and the recruitment of children in armed conflicts, but it does not call for a total prohibition on any recruitment or participation in armed conflict of children under the age of 18. Following the principles of international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the resolution prohibits only the use of children under the age of 15 in armed conflicts because it is considered a war crime. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities” is considered a war crime. (Art. 8, XXVI)
Rehabilitation of Child Soldiers: a Step Towards a Better Future
In recent years there have been important international developments in establishing rehabilitation centers for ex-child soldiers. Rehabilitation centers now exist in Africa and Colombia. In Africa there is the Family Home Care Center in Lakka, Sierra Leone directed by COOPI, an Italian NGO, in collaboration with UNICEF and the Family Homes Movement. There is also the Reconstruindo a Esperança (Rebuilding Hope) Center in Maputo, Mozambique where a group of psychiatrists help former child soldiers re-enter mainstream society. In Colombia the Colombian Welfare Institute (ICBF) houses combatant children while awaiting openings in a rehabilitation center.
The use of child soldiers is arguably worst in Africa. It is there, however, that the most progress has been made in raising the age of conscription to 18 and in involving ex-child soldiers in rehabilitation centers. The 1990 African Charter for the Rights and Welfare of the Child prohibits both recruitment and use of children under 18 as soldiers. It has thus far been ratified by only 15 of the 53 African countries members of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Among the 15 states that have ratified are Angola, Benin, Mozambique, Senegal Togo, and Uganda. Although the Charter came into force on November 20, 1999, Angola and Uganda are still recruiting children under the age of 18. Angola recruits children at 17 and Uganda at 13 years of age as volunteers.
In October 1999 a Conference was held in Berlin on the use of child soldiers in Europe. The conference brought a new hope to the child soldiers issue. Its Berlin Declaration calls for the swift adoption and implementation of new international law prohibiting all participation in armed conflict of children under 18 years of age. However, the declaration was weakened by the refusal of a number of European states to adopt 18 as the minimum age for the participation in armed conflict — notably Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK. In addition, the UK intends to continue its policy of recruiting girls and boys at 16 years of age and deploying them at 17.
Despite this, a gleam of hope has started to light the path towards change. The US Congress has already passed a resolution (S.Con.Res.72) introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), which condemns the use of child soldiers, calls for greater support for rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for ex-child soldiers, and urges the US not to block a ban on the participation of children under 18 in the armed forces. The resolution was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on November 10, 1999.
In addition, the UN Secretary-General Special’s Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara A. Otunnu, presently serves as advocate for children in armed conflicts and is recognized widely for his catalytic work with the United Nations and NGOs concerned about the child soldiers issue. Otunnu has been an advocate for child soldiers, who recognize in him a source of hope for their future. Otunnu has made an outstanding contribution to the protection and the rehabilitation of children involved in armed conflicts by informing and mobilizing international public opinion. He has made people more aware of the fact that the welfare of children affected by armed conflict is a priority issue for the entire world.
It is uncertain if substantial changes can be made in a short time when the international debates center on legal age rather than on the humanitarian problems that these children have to face; but as Otunnu said in his report to the United Nations General Assembly on October 26, 1999, “hopes have been renewed by the extraordinary things done by ordinary people.” The efforts of these ordinary people, such as you and me, cannot be underestimated.
There are many things that we as citizens can do to make a change and give more hope to solving the problem of child soldiers. These include: Join the US campaign to stop the use of child soldiers, by writing or calling the President, the Secretary of State and the members of Congress on this issue. Support the implementation of the Wellstone Senate Resolution. Cooperate with others in your community to publicize the issue of child soldiers in all media – newspapers, radio talk shows, and TV. Support the adoption of an Arms Trade Code of Conduct that would ban the shipment of conventional weapons to countries violating human rights and where light weapons can be easily purchased on the market by children. An Arms Trade Code of Conduct bill (HR2269) has been introduced by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). The bill is now held in the House International Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. Support humanitarian organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), UNICEF, Amnesty International, Free the Children, and Rädda Barnen (Swedish Save the Children), that unhesitatingly struggle to set the minimum age at 18, support the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and advocate demobilizing and reintegrating child soldiers into the community.
The efforts of ordinary people can help renew the culture of peace in all countries. The culture of a country is very important and people who get together and combine their forces can eliminate the sources of violence that are nourished by the availability of light weapons, violence in the entertainment media, and tolerance of domestic violence, and other factors. A global change occurred when ordinary people helped to conduct the campaign to ban landmines, and now it is time to do something to stop the use of child soldiers. Do not let the opportunity slip away to give hope to these children. Believe in the power of one. Even if your voice may seem faint, do not hesitate to let others hear about this serious and urgent matter. You really can create change!
Stefania Capodaglio was the first Ruth Floyd Intern for Human Rights at the foundation’s Santa Barbara headquarters. She is a student at the Catholic University of Milan. -
The City of Hiroshima Peace Declaration
“Today as Hiroshima marked its 54th anniversary of the atomic bombing of our city, we solemnly held the Peace memorial Ceremony in front of the Memorial Cenotaph in Peace Memorial Park, Japan, with thousands of people from Japan and overseas….This Peace Declaration expresses our desire for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the realization of lasting world peace. The situation of the world is still changing suddenly. I would appreciate it if you would read through the Declaration to renew your understanding of the “Spirit of Hiroshma” and convey it to as many people as possible.” -Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, Hiroshma City
A century of war, the twentieth century spawned the devil’s own weapons-nuclear weapons -and humankind has yet to free itself of their threat. Nonetheless, inspired by the memory of the hundreds of thousands who died so tragically in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all of war’s victims, we have fought for the fifty-four years since those bombings for the total abolition of nuclear weapons.
It is the many courageous hibakusha and the people who have identified with their spirit who have led this struggle. Looking at the important contributions these hibakusha have made, we cannot but express our deepest gratitude to them.
There are three major contributions:
The first is that they were able to transcend the infernal pain and despair that the bombings sowed and to opt for life. I want young people to remember that today’s elderly hibakusha were as young as they are when their families, their schools, and their communities were destroyed in a flash. They hovered between life and death in a corpse-strewn sea of rubble and ruin-circumstances under which none would have blamed them had they chosen death. Yet they chose life.
We should never forget the will and courage that made it possible for the hibakusha to continue to be human.
Their second accomplishment is that they effectively prevented a third use of nuclear weapons. Whenever conflict and war break out, there are those who advocate nuclear weapon’s use. This was true even in Kosovo. Yet the hibakusha’s will that the evil not be repeated has prevented the unleashing of this lunacy. Their determination to tell their story to the world, to argue eloquently that to use nuclear weapons is to doom the human race, and to show the use of nuclear weapons to be the ultimate evil has brought about this result. We owe our future and our children’s future to them.
Their third achievement lies in their representing the new world-view as engraved on the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims and articulated in the Japanese Constitution. They have rejected the path of revenge and animosity that leads to extinction for all humankind. Instead, they have taken upon themselves not only the evil that Japan as a nation perpetrated but also the evil of war itself. They have also chosen to put their “trust in the justice and faith” of all humankind in order to create a future full of hope. As peace-loving people from all over the world solemnly proclaimed at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference this May, this is the path that humankind should take in the new century. We ardently applaud all of the countries and people who have written this philosophy into their Constitutions and their laws.
Above all else, we must possess a strong will to abolish nuclear weapons following the examples set by the hibakusha. If the entire world shares this commitment-indeed, even if only the leaders of the nuclear weapons states will it so-nuclear weapons can be eliminated tomorrow.
Such will is born of truth-the truth that nuclear weapons are the absolute evil and cause humankind’s extinction.
Where there is such will, there is a way. Where there is such determination, any path we take leads to our goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. However, if we lack the will to take the first step, we can never reach our goal no matter how easy the way. I especially hope our young people share this will.
Thus, we again call upon the government of Japan to understand fully the crucial role the hibakusha have played and to enhance their support policies. We also call upon the government to place the highest priority on forging the will to abolish nuclear weapons. It is imperative that the government of Japan follows the philosophy outlined in the preamble of the Constitution to persuade other countries of this course and cement a global commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons. I declare the abolition of nuclear weapons to be our most important responsibility for the future of the earth, and pay my utmost respect to the souls of the many that perished in the atomic bombings. May they rest in peace.
Tadatoshi Akiba Mayor, The City of Hiroshima
-
Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Abolish War
Choose peace and a human future, and make sure that your voice is heard!
If nuclear weapons are relied upon for security, sooner or later they will be used by accident or design. That we have had these weapons in our midst for some fifty years provides no proof or promise that they will not be used in the future. In fact, if some nations continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their security, the likelihood is that other nations will choose to do so as well; and the more nuclear weapons proliferate, the greater will be the danger to humanity.
There is a way out of this dilemma. Nuclear weapons were invented by man. While it may not be possible to “dis-invent” them or, as some say, “to put the genie back in the bottle,” it is possible to abolish them under strict and effective international control. In fact, since nuclear weapons threaten the future of humanity, it is a highly sensible goal for humanity to seek to abolish these weapons. But how can this be done? What are the major obstacles preventing the abolition of nuclear weapons, particularly in light of the decade-old end of the Cold War?
These are questions we posed to a group of distinguished experts who participated in an Abolition Strategy Meeting in Santa Barbara at the end of April. In conjunction with the strategy meeting, the Foundation presented its 1999 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to General George Lee Butler for his dedicated efforts to bring about the abolition of nuclear weapons.
An extraordinary group of leaders — including General Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, Ambassador Jonathan Dean, author Jonathan Schell, and actor and U.N. Peace Messenger Michael Douglas — came to Santa Barbara to discuss obstacles facing the abolition movement as well as current opportunities. The Summer 1999 issue of Waging Peace Worldwide features a special section on this Abolition Strategy Meeting that looks at “The Road Ahead.” It includes remarks by General Butler, Senator Cranston, and Jonathan Schell, as well as selected dialogue that occurred at the strategy meeting.
That issue also contains the Abolition 2000 “Call for the New Millennium,” which was an outcome of a very productive general meeting in The Hague of over 1,300 organizations that comprise the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. There are two articles on The Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, a meeting in The Hague which brought together more than 8,000 peace activists from around the globe; a special section dedicated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki; news of Foundation activities; and much more.
One of the most inspiring moments at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference came in the closing ceremony when a group of young people from Sierra Leone – young people who have known the terror and horrors of war in their own country – sang a song they had written especially for the conference called “Bye Bye War.” With a simple melody and lyrics, they moved the entire auditorium at the Hague Congress Center to stand and sway with their rhythm as everyone sang, over and over, “Bye Bye War.”
The challenge of the 21st century is to abolish nuclear weapons and to say good-bye to war itself. The effort to meet this challenge has already begun. I encourage you to evaluate foreign policy initiatives of your country on the basis of whether or not they contribute to a world free of nuclear weapons and an end to war as a human institution. Choose peace and a human future, and make sure that your voice is heard!
-
Imagine Peace
“Can you imagine a world in which the hungry are fed, the cold are clothed, the homeless are housed? Can you imagine a world that is peaceful, a world in which war is only a memory?”
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953
Try to imagine such a world! What would it look like? What would it feel like? How would a peaceful world differ from our present world? How would your own life be different than it is now? How would the resources be used that were once devoted to ever more deadly armaments?
These are important but rarely asked questions that call upon us to use our imaginations. They call upon us to examine the priorities of our own societies, and to think seriously and creatively about our own commitment to ending war and building peace.
I imagine that peace would be built on justice. People would be treated fairly. The hungry would be fed, the cold would be clothed, the homeless housed. There would be no children dying of preventable diseases, and no illiteracy, because societies would prevent these conditions from arising.
If everyone had adequate food, shelter, health care, and education, there would not be so many angry and alienated people. Parents would not despair for the lives and futures of their children. Peace would brighten the future.
What if societies allocated adequate funds to protect the environment and develop environmentally friendly technologies to replace dangerous and damaging ones? What if there were a societal ethic that the environment is a common heritage that we humans must steward for all forms of life and for future generations?
There are reliable estimates that everything I have envisioned above could actually be accomplished for only a small percentage of current world military expenditures. It has been suggested that for approximately $40 billion annually, some 5 precent of current world military expenditures, poverty in the world could be ended.
In a peaceful world, people would treat each other with respect. Diversity would be appreciated. People would be entitled to their own beliefs. They would find ways to cooperate. Borders would be far less important than they are now. There would be a general recognition that we all share one Earth and the responsibility to preserve its abundance and beauty for future generations.
Even in a peaceful world, there would still be conflicts. People and nations would disagree, but there would be conditions assuring that differences would be settled without resort to violence. If this commitment could be trusted—and over time we would come to trust it—there would be no need to expend outrageous amounts on military forces and weapons systems.
In a peaceful world, some nations might still maintain military forces, but they would be for defensive purposes only. It would be a very different orientation. Weapons and delivery systems would be designed for defense, and thus would not be threatening to neighboring countries.
In a peaceful world, the purpose of governments would be to serve all of the people, not to favor the powerful at the expense of the disempowered. Governments would protect the Earth and the heritage of those yet unborn, and find ways to settle differences without resort to violence.
If we cannot imagine such a future, we certainly cannot begin to believe in its possibility. I believe in the power of imagination. If we can imagine a future, it is possible to create it. We may not know today how to get from here to there, and it may seem a very long way away. But we can begin the journey.
Knowing that something is possible is a long step forward on the journey toward achieving it. There may be failures and backtracking along the way, but a peaceful world is a powerful vision, one that ultimately will not be denied.
The Spring 1999 issue of Waging Peace Worldwide focuses on “Building a Culture of Peace.” The authors are all pioneers in this effort, an effort that takes not only imagination, but compassion, courage and commitment. As you read the articles, I encourage you to ask yourself the question, “What role will I play in bringing such a world into being?”
-
Linus Pauling and the Spirit of Peace: A Tale of Two Petitions
Linus Pauling was undoubtedly a great scientist. This is attested to by his Nobel Prize in chemistry and his many discoveries in this field. More important, from my perspective, he was also a great human being. He had an unflagging commitment to peace, which he expressed with intelligence and courage.
I met Linus Pauling in April 1991, when he was presented with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award for Distinguished Peace Leadership. It was a wonderful occasion, at which we also presented the XIVth Dalai Lama with an award for Distinguished Peace Leadership.
In April 1991 the Persian Gulf War had just ended, and Americans were in a particularly patriotic mood. Yellow ribbons abounded, and President Bush’s approval ratings were above 90 percent. In his acceptance speech, before an audience of more than 800 people, Dr. Pauling chose to address what had just happened in the Persian Gulf. He began with a syllogism:
“To kill and maim people is immoral.
War kills and maims people.
War is immoral.”For Pauling it was that simple. On January 8th of that year he had taken out a quarter page ad in the New York Times with the heading, “Stop the Rush to War!” He paid for the ad himself. On January 18th, three days after the war began, he published another advertisement, this time in the Washington Post. It was an Open Letter to President Bush, and it contained the syllogism concluding that war is immoral. Again, Dr. Pauling paid for the ad himself.
In his acceptance speech for our award, Pauling noted that in the military operations of the Persian Gulf War some 300,000 Iraqis had been killed while some 150 Americans had died. The ratio was 2,000 to one. He concluded from this that what happened in the Persian Gulf was not a war.
“In a war,” he said, “you have opposing forces that fight and there are deaths on both sides and finally one side wins. In the old days perhaps this was a demonstration of the democratic process – the side with the biggest number of fighters won. This wasn’t a war. This you could call a massacre or slaughter, perhaps even murder.”
Speaking Truth to Power
Linus Pauling was extremely direct. He stated the truth as he saw it. He was honest and without concern that his views might be very unpopular. He spoke truth to power. He spoke truth whomever he addressed. He spoke truth in the face of overwhelming and irrational patriotic fervor.
In 1955, Pauling was one of 11 prominent signers of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. That document called for an end to war, and posed the problem of our powerful new weapons in this way: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” The Manifesto concluded with this famous statement:
“There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings; remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”
In 1958 Linus Pauling published a book entitled No More War! In this book he stated, “I believe that there will never again be a great world war, if only the people of the United States and of the rest of the world can be informed in time about the present world situation. I believe that there will never be a war in which the terrible nuclear weapons – atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, superbombs – are used. I believe that the development of these terrible weapons forces us to move into a new period in the history of the world, a period of peace and reason, when world problems are not solved by war or by force, but are solved by the application of man’s power of reason, in a way that does justice to all nations and that benefits all people.”
The Scientists’ Petition To Stop Nuclear Testing
Pauling described in that book the terrible consequences of nuclear war. He also described the spurious arguments of Edward Teller for a so-called “clean” nuclear bomb. He also described a petition which he had prepared and circulated to scientists calling for an international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear weapons. The petition stated:
“We, the scientists whose names are signed below, urge that an international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear bombs be made now.
“Each nuclear bomb test spreads an added burden of radioactive elements over every part of the world. Each added amount of radiation causes damage to the health of human beings all over the world and causes damage to the pool of human germ plasm such as to lead to an increase in the number of seriously defective children that will be born in future generations.
“So long as these weapons are in the hands of only three powers an agreement for their control is feasible. If testing continues, and the possession of these weapons spreads to additional governments, the danger of outbreak of a cataclysmic nuclear war through reckless action of some irresponsible national leader will be greatly increased.
“An international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear bombs now could serve as a first step toward a more general disarmament and the ultimate effective abolition of nuclear weapons, averting the possibility of a nuclear war that would be a catastrophe to all humanity.
“We have in common with our fellow men a deep concern for the welfare of all human beings. As scientists we have knowledge of the dangers involved and therefore a special responsibility to make those dangers known. We deem it imperative that immediate action be taken to effect an international agreement to stop testing of all nuclear weapons.”
The petition was originally prepared for American scientists, but soon it was being signed by scientists around the world. By early 1958 the petition had been signed by 9,235 scientists, including 36 Nobel Laureates. On January 15, 1958, Pauling presented the petition with these signatures to Dag Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Later the number of signatories of the petition grew to 11,021, representing 49 countries, and 37 Nobel Laureates. All of these signatures were collected on the initiative of Linus Pauling and his wife, Ava Helen, who played a very instrumental role in his life and his work for peace.
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
As a result of Dr. Pauling’s efforts and those of others, a Partial Test Ban Treaty was achieved in 1963. This was far less than Pauling had worked for. The treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, the oceans, and outer space, but it allowed testing to continue underground. In reality, it was an environmental treaty rather than a disarmament treaty. The treaty ultimately stopped atmospheric nuclear testing, with all of its hazards for human health. It did not, however, stop the nuclear arms race, which continued unabated for the next 35 years and in certain respects continues today.
Dr. Pauling’s petition called for the “ultimate effective abolition of nuclear weapons.” This great goal remains to be achieved, and it falls to us – all of us – to achieve it. This brings me to the tale of the second petition, a tale all of us can participate in completing.
In August 1997 a few of us working on Abolition 2000, which is a global network to abolish nuclear weapons, met in Santa Barbara for a brainstorming session. We decided that we needed a vehicle to go directly to the people for the cause of nuclear weapons abolition. We developed a simple petition, with three main points:
1. End the Nuclear Threat. End the nuclear threat by dealerting all nuclear weapons, withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles and disabling them, committing to unconditional no first use of nuclear weapons, and ceasing all nuclear weapons tests, including laboratory tests and “subcriticals.”
2. Sign the Treaty. Sign a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000, agreeing to the elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework.
3. Reallocate Resources. Reallocate resources to ensure a sustainable global future and to redress the environmental devastation and human suffering caused by nuclear weapons production and testing, which have been disproportionately borne by the world’s indigenous peoples.
Abolition 2000 Petition, Gathering the Signatures
A month later, I was in Japan to help commemorate the 40th anniversary of the call for the abolition of nuclear weapons issued by Josei Toda, the second president of Soka Gakkai. In speaking with an international youth group of Soka Gakkai International, I mentioned the Abolition 2000 petition and spoke of its three important points. To my great surprise, I received word the next month that the youth division of Soka Gakkai in the Hiroshima region had decided to gather signatures on this petition. They set their initial goal at one million signatures.
About a month later, I learned that signatures were to be gathered throughout Japan and the goal was 5 million signatures. In the end, in just three months, from November 1997 to January 1998, over 13 million signatures were gathered in Japan. One out of every nine persons in Japan signed the petition.
In April 1998 a representative sample of these signatures was presented in Geneva to Ambassador Wyzner, the chair of the 1998 preparatory committee meeting for the year 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.
The effort by the Soka Gakkai youth in Japan was highly commendable. I’m sure it would have been welcomed and applauded by both Josei Toda and Linus Pauling. But the effort must not stop there. We are continuing to gather signatures in other parts of the world, including the United States.
In my view, it is the United States, more than any other country, that must change its position on the abolition of nuclear weapons. Until the United States becomes seriously involved in this effort, the effort cannot succeed. And I am convinced that the United States will not become the leader of this effort until the people of this country demand of their government that it do so.
This is why this petition is so important, and why I enlist your help in reaching out to people all over this country to call for the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons. If we were to gather a number of signatures proportionate to our population as were gathered in Japan, we would need more than 25 million signatures. Can you imagine the power of presenting 25 million American signatures to the President and Congress? They would have to listen to us. They would have to act to achieve this end.
Moral Countries Lead the Way
Dr. Pauling concluded his speech at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation by saying, “I hope that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will work in the effort to make the United States into a moral country that could lead the world into a future of morality, a future worthy of man’s intelligence.”
We are trying to do this, and I ask you to join in the effort to make the United States a moral country that could lead the way in achieving “a future worthy of man’s intelligence.”
To make the United States a moral country, we should take the following steps:
1. End the nuclear threat, and work to abolish all nuclear weapons from Earth. Nothing could be more immoral than threatening to murder hundreds of millions of innocent people in the name of national security. Remember this: nuclear weapons incinerate people. They are instruments of genocide that no sane nor moral person would ever want to be faced with using. And yet, even now, more than eight years into the post-Cold War era, we continue to rely upon these weapons and our official policy states that we will do so for the indefinite future. At many international conferences connected with the Non-Proliferation Treaty that I have attended, it has been the representatives of the United States who have thrown up the greatest stumbling blocks to nuclear disarmament. If we are to have a moral country this must change.
2. Support an Arms Trade Code of Conduct. Stop selling arms to dictators and countries that violate human rights. The United States has become the arms salesman to the world. We lead all other nations in the sale of armaments. If we are to be a moral country, we must cease this practice, and place strict limitations on the transfer of armaments to other nations.
3. Reallocate resources from military purposes to supporting adequate nutrition, health care, shelter and education for all members of society. The United States is the undisputed world champion in military spending. We spend more than the next 13 highest spending countries combined. These include Russia, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany and China. We need to realize that security requires more than military power. It also requires meeting human needs. A moral nation can be judged by its compassion toward its poorest and least fortunate members.
4. Abide by international law and work to strengthen it. On many occasions in our recent past we have chosen not to give our support to international law. We were in the minority of nations in opposing a global ban on landmines, although most of our allies supported this ban. We were again in the minority in opposing the creation of an International Criminal Court, although most of our allies supported the creation of this court – a court to hold individuals accountable for the worst violations of international law, the ones that we held the Nazi leaders accountable for at Nuremberg. Recently, we took it upon ourselves to bomb sites in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for terrorist attacks rather than turning this matter over to the United Nations Security Council as we are required to do under international law. If we are to be a moral country, we cannot both fight terrorism and be terrorists ourselves.
5. End all covert actions designed to destabilize or overthrow foreign governments. If we wish to see governments changed in other countries, we should speak out and give support to the opposition. We should not, however, be secretly providing arms, fomenting revolution, or attempting political assassinations. If we are to be a moral country, we cannot use immoral means to achieve what we believe are good ends.
6. Work to resolve conflicts peacefully through negotiations, mediation, arbitration, and the International Court of Justice. There are many means to resolve conflicts short of violence, and to be a moral country we must support these means and use them. When a country is powerful militarily, as we are, there is a temptation to rely upon raw force rather than the power of the law. This temptation must be resisted.
7. Apply our science and technology in constructive ways for the good of humanity rather than in destructive ways. Far too much of our government research and development budget goes into ever more sophisticated weaponry. Despite having agreed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we are still conducting “subcritical” tests of nuclear weapons. In doing so, we violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. If we are to be a moral country, we must shift our technological priorities to fighting infant mortality, combating disease, improving nutrition, eliminating pollution, and eradicating poverty.
8. Be honest with the American people. Stop hiding information under the guise of national security. Pursue a policy of informed consent. Without honesty and full information from the officials we elect, we cannot make informed decisions about the kind of future we choose for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. If we are to have a moral country, we must have an honest and open government.
There is, of course, more we must do to be a moral country, but these steps would set us on the right road. They are steps that I feel certain Linus Pauling would support with all his energy, and I encourage you to endorse them and work for them as well.
In the concluding chapter of his book, Linus Pauling wrote: “I believe that there is a greater power in the world than the evil power of military force, of nuclear bombs – there is the power of good, of morality, of humanitarianism.” He also wrote: “I believe in the power of the human spirit.”
There is no greater force than the power of the people when moved to action. The power of the people brought independence to India. It ended the war in Vietnam. It brought down the Berlin Wall. It ended the Cold War. It brought democracy to Eastern Europe and to Russia. It ended the Duvallier regime in Haiti, the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and the Suharto regime in Indonesia. It brought down the regime based on apartheid in South Africa, and brought forth a leader like Nelson Mandela who has lived with the spirit of forgiveness.
If the American people are moved to action, we can create a moral country. Our first step must be to end the intolerable threat that nuclear weapons pose for humanity. We must complete the task that Linus Pauling and other peace leaders began more than four decades ago. We stand on the threshold of a new century. Let us commit ourselves to crossing this threshold with a treaty in place to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
There is great power for both good and evil in the human spirit. Let us choose good, let us choose life, let us choose hope, let us choose peace. Let us work, as Linus Pauling did, to make our country “a moral country that could lead the world into a future of morality, a future worthy of man’s intelligence.” This was the challenge that Linus Pauling worked for during his life, and the legacy he has left to us.