Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: peace

  • Joint Statement Against Nuclear Tests and Weapons by Retired Pakistani and Indian Armed Forces Personnel

    Recent developments in South Asia in the field of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery are a serious threat to the wellbeing of this region.

    The fact that India and Pakistan have fought wars in the recent past and do not as yet enjoy the best of relations, makes this development all the more ominous. The signatories of this statement are not theoreticians or arm-chair idealists; we have spent many long years in the profession of arms and have served our countries both in peacetime and in war.

    By virtue of our experience and the positions we have held, we have a fair understanding of the destructive parameters of conventional and nuclear weapons. We are of the considered view that nuclear weapons should be banished from the South Asian region, and indeed from the entire globe.

    We urge India and Pakistan to take the lead by doing away with nuclear weapons in a manifest and verifiable manner, and to confine nuclear research and development strictly to peaceful and beneficient spheres.

    We are convinced that the best way of resolving disputes is through peaceful means and not through war – least of all by the threat or use of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan need to address their real problems of poverty and backwardness, not waste our scarce resources on acquiring means of greater and greater destruction.

    Signed

    Air Marshal Zafar A. Choudhry (Pakistan)
    Admiral L. Ramdas (India)
    Lt. Gen Gurbir Mansingh (India)

  • A Break in the Clouds

    It is a great joy for my wife and I to return to Nagasaki. It has been more then 30 years since we last visited your beautiful city.

    I have often thought of the irony that Nagasaki should have entered the Nuclear Age as the second city to be bombed by an atomic weapon. When the U.S. B-29, Bock’s Car, left Tinian Island carrying its deadly cargo in the early morning hours of August 9, 1945, it was headed to another target, the city of Kokura. Were it not for the weather conditions that day — specifically, the cloud cover over Kokura — it would have been that city and not Nagasaki on which the bomb would have been dropped.

    Not being able to bomb Kokura, the pilot of the B-29 headed toward his secondary target, Nagasaki. Even here, there was cloud cover, and only a small opening in the clouds allowed the pilot to release that second atomic bomb, causing such destruction to your city and its people. Were it not for the clouds over Kokura and the small opening in the clouds over Nagasaki, your city would have been spared, at least for that day. I can’t help thinking that even gentle, ephemeral clouds could prevent an atomic bombing from occurring. We humans are not so powerful as we might think — when we compare ourselves with the power of nature. Yet, we are capable of doing great harm to each other — as we have witnessed at Nagasaki and on occasions too numerous to mention.

    The bombings of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima have taught us a simple lesson, perhaps the most basic lesson of the Nuclear Age: This must never happen again. Cloud cover must never again be the sole factor to save a city, or a break in the clouds provide an opening for nuclear devastation. Today’s missile technology, in fact, makes cloud cover irrelevant. Our task must be to make nuclear weapons — and all weapons of mass destruction — irrelevant. The only way to do this is to ban these weapons and abolish them forever.

    The evil that occurred at Nagasaki and Hiroshima must never be repeated. No city and its people must ever again be subjected to attack with a nuclear weapon. Such an attack would exceed all bounds of morality. It would undermine every precept of human decency and human dignity.

    Nuclear weapons, in the words of a former president of the International Court of Justice, are “the ultimate evil.” The description echoes Josai Toda’s reference to them more than forty years ago as “an absolute evil.”

    In the past few years there has been a growing chorus of voices to abolish nuclear weapons. When a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, can join the call for abolition, we are making progress. General Butler, who retired from the U.S. Air Force in 1994, has stated, “I think that the vast majority of people on the face of this earth will endorse the proposition that such weapons have no place among us. There is no security to be found in nuclear weapons. It’s a fool’s game.”

    General Butler is not alone among military leaders calling for nuclear weapons abolition. Many generals and admirals from around the world have done so as well. In 1996 some 60 retired generals and admirals from 17 countries joined General Butler in stating:

    “We have been presented with a challenge of the highest possible historic importance: the creation of a nuclear-weapons-free world. The end of the Cold War makes it possible.

    “The dangers of proliferation, terrorism, and new nuclear arms races render it necessary. We must not fail to seize our opportunity. There is no alternative.”

    The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, composed of a distinguished group of experts, including General Butler, Joseph Rotblat and the late Jacques Cousteau, issued a report in 1996 that said: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used — accidentally or by decision — defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.”

    The International Court of Justice has also spoken on the issue of eliminating nuclear weapons. In issuing an opinion on the illegality of these weapons in 1996, the Court made clear that there is an obligation under international law to proceed with good faith negotiations for their elimination.

    At the end of 1996 and again at the end of 1997 the United Nations General Assembly called upon all states to commence negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    In February 1998 a statement calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons was released at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The statement was signed by 117 leaders from 46 countries, including 47 past or present presidents or prime ministers. Among the signers were former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and five former prime ministers of Japan. The Statement concluded: “The world is not condemned to live forever with threats of nuclear conflict, or anxious fragile peace imposed by nuclear deterrence. Such threats are intolerable and such a peace unworthy. The sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons invokes a moral imperative for their elimination. That is our mandate. Let us begin.”

    The governments of some nuclear weapons states have been moving slowly in the direction of reducing the nuclear threat, but they have not yet demonstrated that they are committed to eliminating their nuclear arsenals. They treat their nuclear arsenals like security blankets when, in fact, they provide no security — only threat.

    There is no security in threatening the mass annihilation of civilians. In truth, it is not only cowardly, but foolish beyond words. It places the population of the country possessing nuclear weapons in danger of retaliation.

    It is important to keep in mind, that nuclear holocaust could occur not only by intention, but by accident or miscalculation as well. As recently as 1995 the Russians were poised to launch a nuclear response when they mistakenly believed that a missile launched from Norway was a nuclear attack aimed at Russia.

    Nuclear holocaust could also occur if terrorists came into possession of a nuclear weapon, and we know that some nuclear weapons are small enough to be carried by a single individual in a large backpack.

    We will be free of the threat of nuclear holocaust only when we are free of nuclear weapons. No group of people knows this better than the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is the hibakusha, the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that remind us that the pain of nuclear weapons lingers. Radiation causes pain and suffering that continues to kill for decades, and genetically affects new generations.

    I am convinced that if we want a world at peace, we must create it. There is no other choice. Governments will not succeed on their own in creating such a world. The power of the people must push governments — or, more accurately, the power of the people must lead governments. We will have a peaceful and just world when enough people are willing to commit themselves to creating such a world, and will make their voices heard.

    The same is true of a world free of the threat of nuclear holocaust. We will have such a world when the people demand it. This process has begun. Here in Japan you have raised your voices, and the chorus of your voices will be heard around the world. I am overwhelmed that more than 13 million signatures for nuclear weapons abolition have been gathered in Japan in only a few months time. These signatures represent the power of an idea whose time is now. They also demonstrate the power of the people when they join together in common cause.

    These signatures represent 13 million voices of hope for a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. These voices of hope have unleashed a power that will not be stopped until the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is achieved.

    I congratulate you on what you have accomplished. These signatures are enough to inspire, enough to move people everywhere to greater commitment. President Ikeda must be very proud of you, and I can only imagine how proud Josai Toda would be to know that you are working to carry out his vision of a nuclear weapons free world.

    The more than 13 million signatures you have gathered are an important step on the road to abolition. But we must not rest. We must commit ourselves to continuing our activities to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons until the goal is accomplished and the last nuclear weapon in the world is destroyed. Will you join me in making this commitment?

    The Abolition 2000 International Petition calls for three outcomes. First, ending the threat. Second, signing a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. Third, reallocating resources from military purposes to assuring a sustainable future.

    Isn’t it crazy that the Cold War ended many years ago, and yet the nuclear weapons states continue to keep their nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert? There is no reason to continue this threat. These weapons must be taken off alert status immediately! There must be time to sort through all the facts, to consider the full consequences of what is being contemplated, and to avoid acting in a moment of passion.

    Warheads can be separated from delivery vehicles. A no-first-use agreement can be achieved, in which each nuclear weapons state agrees that it will never under any circumstance be the first to use nuclear weapons. These steps will make the world far safer. They can be taken immediately, and will have a profound effect on the way nuclear weapons are viewed by their possessors.

    The petition calls for signing a treaty by the year 2000 to eliminate all nuclear weapons within a fixed time period. This is the treaty called for by Abolition 2000, by the World Court, and by most nations in the world. It is absolutely reasonable that we should enter the 21st century with such a commitment in place.

    The petition calls for reallocating resources from military purposes to meeting human needs. It says a great deal about our priorities that we are spending more for military forces in our world than we do for healthcare and education of our youth. We live in a world in which many thousands of children under the age of five die daily from starvation and preventable diseases. This totals to millions of children a year. It is outrageous, unacceptable, and must be ended. We must change our priorities.

    What is at stake is no less than the future of humanity. Each of you who has signed the petition has taken a first step, but you must not stop with this step. You must continue to speak out and demand greater action from your own government, and from other governments of the world.

    You can also help by asking the council of the municipality where you live or the student government where you go to school to support an Abolition 2000 Resolution. There are currently over 185 municipalities that have gone on record in support of Abolition 2000, but we need to increase this number to thousands around the world.

    I urge you to continue to press the Japanese government to take a more responsible position on eliminating nuclear weapons. The Japanese government has not kept faith with the people of Japan on this issue. The government has placed Japan under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and reached secret nuclear agreements with the U.S. The Japanese government has also imported many tons of reprocessed plutonium 239, material suitable for making nuclear weapons. In fact, Japan could become a major nuclear weapons state in only a matter of days or weeks if it chose to do so.

    The future of humanity demands that we succeed in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. If these weapons remain in the arsenals of the nuclear weapons states, there will be a time in the future when they will be used again. The retention of these horrible weapons provides an example that other states will look to and that will eventually lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This, too, will make the world more dangerous.

    Because we must succeed, we will succeed. But it will not be easy. There are still many obstacles to overcome. We must be strong in our dedication, unwavering in our commitment. I am heartened to know of your dedication and commitment. I will let others throughout the world know of your great accomplishment, and your continuing efforts.

    I plan to inform the top leadership of the United Nations of your achievement. The United Nations Charter begins, “We, the Peoples….” We must put the people back into the United Nations. The elimination of nuclear weapons is too important to be left only to politicians and diplomats. They must hear the voices of the people — your voices.

    In April, I will share with the delegates to the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference in Geneva your achievement in gathering more than 13 million signatures for nuclear weapons abolition. I will also do everything I can to bring your message to President Clinton, who has the power — but thus far has lacked the vision — to lead the way to fulfilling the goals of the petition. I will also work with other citizens groups in Abolition 2000 to see that your message is brought to the leaders of all nuclear weapons states.

    Let me conclude with a story about the sunflower. When Ukraine gave up the last of the nuclear weapons that it had inherited when the former Soviet Union split apart, there was an unusual celebration. The defense ministers of the U.S., Russia and Ukraine met at a former Ukrainian missile base that once housed 80 SS-19 nuclear armed missiles aimed at the United States. The defense ministers celebrated the occasion by planting sunflowers and scattering sunflower seeds. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry said, “Sunflowers instead of missiles in the soil will ensure peace for future generations.”

    Later I learned that protesters in the United States many years before had illegally entered missile sites in the U.S. and planted sunflowers above the missile silos. These protesters had been imprisoned for their courage.

    Sunflowers have become the symbol of a nuclear weapons free world. They are bright, beautiful, natural, and even nutritious. They stand in stark contrast to nuclear armed missiles, which are costly, manmade instruments of genocide. Let us choose what is natural and healthy. Let us restore our Earth, our decency, our humanity.

    We need to control our darker impulses. Nothing could be more representative of this than replacing missiles with sunflowers. If Ukraine can accomplish this, so can the rest of the world.

    Please make the sunflower your symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons. In doing so, you will also make it a symbol of a better humanity, of bringing forth a greater humanness in each of us. Let the sunflower also symbolize your own deeper humanity as you continue to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Thank you for caring. Thank you for what you have done. Thank you for all you will do in the future to create a safer and more decent world. I look forward to sharing the day with you when we have succeeded in creating a world without nuclear weapons. Please never lose hope that such a world is possible, and never stop working and speaking out to create such a world.

  • Countless Voices of Hope

    It is with profound appreciation and gratitude that I return to this city of peace, this sacred city of Hiroshima. This city was made sacred not by the tragedy which befell it, but by the rebirth of hope which emerged from that tragedy. From the ashes of Hiroshima, flowers of hope have blossomed, bringing forth a renewed spirit of possibility, of peace, to a world in which hope has been too often crushed for too many.

    The massive destruction that was visited upon this city on August 6, 1945 gave birth to the Nuclear Age, an age in which our species would move from the too often practiced power of genocide to the potential of omnicide, the destruction of all humanity and perhaps all life. The devastating power of nuclear weapons, as manifested first at Hiroshima and then at Nagasaki, has made peace not only desirable but imperative.

    Through the memories of the survivors, the hibakusha, we may learn of the horror they experienced so that we may act to prevent that horror from ever recurring anywhere again. The scenes etched in their memories can pierce us to the marrow of our bones. Sumie Mizukawa, a young girl at the time of the bombing, remembered the sight of a blinded young mother. She wrote:

    Her eyes blinded

    her dead infant in her arms

    with tears streaming

    from those sightless eyes

    that would never see again.

    I saw this in my childhood

    as my mother led me by the hand.

    That image will never leave

    my memories of that dreadful time.

    Kosaku Okabe described a scene of misery with “countless bodies of men, women, and children” floating in the river. “It was then,” he wrote, “that I first began to understand the brutality of war.” He continued, “Burned into my memory is the sight of a young mother, probably in her twenties, a baby on her back and a three- or four-year-old child clasped tightly in her arms. Caught against a girder on a bridge her body bobbed idly in the gentle current.”

    How could these images not be seared into memory? And how vitally important it is that such images be shared with others throughout the world so that this pain will not again be inflicted on young mothers and their children in other cities at other times. As Akihiro Takahashi, a former director of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Center, wrote, “‘Hiroshima’ is not merely a historic fact in the past. It is an alarm bell for the future of humankind.”

    I have had the great privilege of knowing Miyoko Matsubara, who was a twelve year old child when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. Miyoko struggled to learn English so that she could tell the story of what she witnessed and experienced — including her own injury, pain and disfigurement — to young people throughout the world. She was only a child, but she has carried the pain throughout her life. She also carries hope, and her courage gives hope to others.

    Miyoko’s message is the message of Hiroshima: “Never again! We shall not repeat the evil.” This message is a clarion call to sanity. It is a cry to the human species to remember our humanity. If we fail to do so, the consequences will be severe. We run the risk of destroying ourselves and much of life. Our capacity for destruction tests our wisdom. The most important issue of our time, although not widely viewed as such, is that of assuring that the evil is not repeated.

    I would like you to know that the message of your city awakened me. I first visited Hiroshima when I was 21 years old. At the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, I learned of the human cost of nuclear destruction, of the tragedy and suffering caused by that single bomb. The spirit of Hiroshima entered my soul. I had no choice but to find a way to work for peace and an end to the threat of future nuclear holocausts.

    A second experience solidified my commitment to peace. Returning from Japan in 1964, I found that I had been called into the army. Not realizing the full range of my options, I joined a reserve unit rather than serve on active duty. However, four years later this reserve unit was called to active duty, and I received orders to go to Vietnam as an infantry officer. At that time I believed, and continue to believe today, that this was a war both immoral and illegal. I knew that if I went to Vietnam I would be forced to kill and order others to do so. I, therefore, as a conscientious objector, refused the order to go to Vietnam, and ended up fighting the army in federal court.

    It was a great awakening for me to realize that my power as an individual was greater than that of the United States Army. The army had the power to give me an order, but I had the power to say No to their order. I might have gone to jail for doing so, but that was my choice. I had a choice, as we all do, to do what I believed was right. To exercise that choice is tremendously empowering. It is the power of conscience, which is a defining human characteristic, one that separates us from all other forms of life.

    Above all else, I consider myself to be a citizen of Earth. I believe that the bonds of our common humanity uniting us are far stronger than the artificial boundaries that divide us. I am also a citizen of the United States, having been born in Los Angeles three years before the Nuclear Age began. Speaking as a single individual, but I’m sure representing millions of others throughout the world, I deeply regret the crime against humanity that occurred here. As an American, I apologize to you, although I know from Miyoko and other hibakusha that your forgiveness came long ago.

    I apologize because my government has not yet done so. I apologize because my government has not yet heard the message of Hiroshima, nor learned its foremost lesson — “Never again!” I apologize because my government still bases its national security on the threat to use nuclear weapons. I apologize because your pain and your suffering should not be borne by you alone.

    What happened here affects us all. If we can find it in ourselves to share in your tragedy — a tragedy that for most people on Earth today is only of historical memory — we may be capable of sharing in your hope. And, if we can do that, we may be capable of bringing forth a new world in which the ever present threat of nuclear holocaust is ended for all time.

    Just over 40 years ago, Josei Toda, your second president, called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons, and called upon the youth of Soka Gakkai to help lead the way. Five months ago I was in Tokyo and Yokohama for the commemoration of that fortieth anniversary. In the short time since that fortieth anniversary, the youth of Soka Gakkai, beginning here in Hiroshima, have gathered over 13 million signatures for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I am in awe of your effort and your accomplishment. I know that President Ikeda is as well. I can only imagine how proud Josei Toda would have been to know of your effort. Your effort inspires and motivates. It is a source of hope.

    In your effort to gather signatures you have become educators and activists. You have brought this critical issue of nuclear weapons abolition to the attention of over 13 million people, and have obtained their affirmation of the need to end this nuclear weapons era which threatens the future of humanity and, indeed, all life.

    The petition on which you gathered signatures was prepared by Abolition 2000, which is a global network of over 1000 citizens organizations in some 75 countries working for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Abolition 2000 draws its strength from the grassroots, from the people. In this respect, it is similar to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. When the landmines campaign succeeded in having a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines signed in Ottawa, Jody Williams, the coordinator of the campaign, said, “Together we are a superpower. It’s a new definition of superpower. It’s not one of us; it’s all of us.” In Abolition 2000, as in the landmines campaign, we are not alone, and together we can become the most powerful grassroots movement in the history of humankind.

    The Abolition 2000 International Petition asks for three actions. First, end the nuclear threat by such reasonable steps as withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles, and committing to unconditional no-first-use of nuclear weapons. Second, sign an international treaty — a Nuclear Weapons Convention — by the year 2000, agreeing to eliminate all nuclear weapons within a fixed period of time. Third, reallocate resources from military purposes to assuring a sustainable global future.

    Each signature you have gathered represents a voice of hope. Together they represent a chorus of hope that can move the world. We don’t know with certainty what forces you have set in motion by your effort, but we do know that you have touched many lives and that they in turn will touch more lives. If other concerned citizens throughout the world will follow your lead, we can achieve our goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

    You have concluded your petition campaign, but please don’t consider your task finished until the last nuclear weapon is removed from the world. This will not happen overnight. It will take sustained effort and commitment. It will require the often under-appreciated virtue of perseverance. All that is truly worth achieving requires perseverance — loving relationships, healthy communities, and a decent world.

    I will take the message of your achievement to the leaders of the United Nations, to the delegates preparing for the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, to non-governmental organizations working for nuclear weapons abolition throughout the world, and to the leaders of my own country and other nuclear weapons states.

    I urge you to take the message of these 13 million voices to your own government, which has not been true to the people of Japan in its nuclear policies. Your government has not only been content to rely upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella, but — by its accumulation of reprocessed plutonium — has become a virtual nuclear weapons power capable of assembling hundreds of nuclear weapons in days or weeks. If we are to have a world free of nuclear weapons, we must convince our respective governments to change their policies. You must help to convince your government and I must help to convince mine that reliance upon nuclear weapons for defense is an act of folly that endangers our future and undermines our decency as well as our security.

    Sometimes we cannot see the full fruits of our efforts during our lifetimes. This has been true of many great peace leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is also true of Josei Toda whose vision forms the foundation for your effort. It is true for all of us — if our vision is great enough. I believe, however, that a world free of nuclear weapons can and will be achieved within our lifetimes.

    I urge you to dream of what can be, and to always hold fast to your dreams. I beseech you never to lose the dream of a world free from the threat of nuclear holocaust. I implore you to listen to your conscience, and to act courageously upon it. I encourage you to walk the path of peace, which is also the path of justice. I call upon you to follow President Ikeda’s sage advice, “Continue to advance, step-by-step! Never, ever, give up hope.”

    If we follow our dreams, if we listen to our consciences, if we act courageously, if we walk the path of peace, if we never give up hope, we will rise to our full stature as human beings. We will live lives that are rich and full. We will make a difference and, by our examples, we will influence others to live such lives. I promise you that I will do my utmost to join you in living such a life and will encourage others to join us as well.

    I would like to conclude by sharing with you a poem of hope written by Sadako Kurihara just after the bombing of Hiroshima.

    WE SHALL BRING FORTH NEW LIFE

    It was night in the basement of a broken building.

    Victims of the atomic bombing

    Crowding into the candleless darkness,

    Filling the room to overflowing —

    The smell of fresh blood, the stench of death,

    The stuffiness of human sweat, the writhing moans —

    When, out of the darkness, came a wondrous voice

    “Oh! The baby’s coming!” it said.

    In the basement turned to living hell

    A young woman had gone into labor!

    The others forgot their own pain in their concern;

    What could they do for her, having not even a match

    To bring light to the darkness?

    Then came another voice: “I am a midwife.

    I can help her with the baby.”

    It was a woman who had been moaning in pain only moments before.

    And so a new life was born

    In the darkness of that living hell.

    And so, the midwife died before the dawn,

    Still soaked in the blood of her own wounds.

    We shall give forth new life!

    We shall bring forth new life!

    Even to our death.

    To find such hope in the darkness of that awful night is a triumph of the human spirit. In remembering Hiroshima, let us dedicate ourselves to bringing forth new life. Let us dedicate ourselves to building a world in which even the threat of nuclear devastation is not a possibility. Let us dedicate ourselves to bringing forth a new world in which no child ever again must suffer the pain of war or hunger or abandonment. Let us dedicate ourselves to building a world in which there is liberty, justice and dignity for all who share this extraordinary planet that gave birth to life. Let us walk the path of peace, and be active participants in the pursuit of peace!

     

  • Sowing Seeds of Peace

    We are in the season of Hiroshima, having just passed the 52nd anniversary of the bombing of that city by a single nuclear weapon. On the day the bomb was dropped, August 6, 1945, there was a tear in the fabric of the world. It became clear that a chasm had opened between our technological capabilities for destruction and our spiritual/moral precepts of respect for the dignity and sacredness of human life. Of course, war itself has been a breeding ground for undermining respect for the value of human life. But nuclear weapons brought our destructive capabilities to new heights. Albert Einstein, the great scientist who conceived of the theory of relativity, gave voice to the problem confronting humanity when he said, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    The “unparalleled catastrophe” Einstein spoke of included the end of human civilization and the destruction of most life on Earth. During the Cold War each side pursued a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction and built up arsenals capable of destroying the other side many times over, despite the knowledge that use of these terrible weapons would entail their own destruction as well as the destruction of most life on Earth. This strategy, which has the acronym MAD, is based upon calculations of human rationality. Yet, as we all know, humans act irrationally for many reasons, not least of which are fear, anger, jealousy, hatred, and mistrust. Humans also make mistakes because they lack pertinent information, misinterpret the information they do have, misconstrue the intentions of other humans, or miscalculate their own capabilities or those of others. The strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction was and remains truly MAD.

    The Nuclear Age demands greater efforts to achieve peace and a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. The great challenge of our time is to end the threat of nuclear annihilation. The end of the Cold War has made this possible, but entrenched ways of thinking have made it difficult. Even after the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the nuclear weapons states are still relying upon their nuclear arsenals to provide security. But security from whom? Security against what? We need a new kind of security that does not place the human future in jeopardy. We need to learn to think and act in new ways.

    Let me suggest some elements of this new way of thinking.

    1. Think indigenous. Think like a person whose feet touch the land, like one who loves and respects the Earth and all its creatures. Think seven generations. Recognize that all acts have consequences. Protect the Earth that sustains you. Ask yourself what are the consequences for the Earth of each act you take. Corbin Harney, spiritual leader of the Western Shoshone, has reminded us that we have only “One Earth, one air, one water.” Chief Seattle is reported to have said:

    The Earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites our family. If we kill snakes, the field mice will multiply and destroy our corn. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

    2. Think like an astronaut. Keep a broad perspective. See the world as one. Recognize that all borders are manmade. They may exist on maps, but they do not really exist on Earth. That is what the astronauts discovered when they went into space and looked back at our small fragile planet that floats in an immensely vast universe. Astronaut Salman Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia described his experience travelling in space with other astronauts:

    The first day, we pointed to our countries. The third day, we pointed to our continents. By the fifth day, we were aware of only one Earth.

    3. The late Carl Sagan, a space scientist and author of Cosmos and Contact, described the Earth as a “pale blue dot”. He wrote:

    After Voyager 2 passed Neptune, I got a chance to do something I had wanted to do for many years: turn the cameras around and photograph the distant Earth…

    I look at that picture and I see a pale blue dot. One pixel, one picture element, just a dot. I think, that’s us. That’s our home world. Everybody you know, everybody you love, everybody you’ve ever heard of, everybody who ever lived, every human being in the history of the universe lived on that blue dot. Every hopeful child, every couple in love, every prince and pauper, every revered religious leader, every corrupt politician, every ethnocentrist and xenophobe, all of them there on that little dot.

    It speaks to me of fragility and vulnerability, not for the planet, but for the species that imagines itself the dominant organism living as part of a thin film of life that covers the dot. It seems to me that this perspective carries with it, as does so much else we know, an obligation to care for and cherish that blue dot, the only home our species has ever known.

    4. Think with your heart. Learn to stand in the other person’s shoes. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were in that other person’s shoes. Act with compassion. Follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don’t be stopped or molded by so-called enemies. Look into the faces, the eyes, the hearts of those who are labeled enemies. Find their humanity. In doing so, you will also find your own.

    5. Think peace. Peace is a process. It requires constant effort to maintain a dynamic balance. I define peace in this way: Peace is a dynamic process of nonviolent social interaction that results in security for all members of a society. Thus, peace is more than the absence of war. Without security, there is no peace.

    6. Think like a seed. Recognize that you have the inherent power of growth. You are not static. A tiny seed may become a majestic tree.

    Potential is realized in many ways, in the seemingly small decisions that one makes each day. When Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, refused to give up her seat in the front of a public bus to a white man, she was realizing her potential. Her simple act of courage, which caused her to be arrested, led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the modern civil rights movement. When Daniel Ellsberg, a Defense Department analyst, risked imprisonment by turning over the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, thus exposing secret reports on the Vietnam War to the American people, he was realizing his potential as a human being.

    Let me contrast this way of thinking with what I believe are the main characteristics of the old way of thinking. It is short-sighted without due regard for consequences; technology centered, seeking technological rather than human solutions to problems; high-risk, and often propelled by testosterone; rooted in secrecy, which is maintained by official classification of information in the name of national security; and often arrogant, bureaucratic, and hierarchical. In short, it is thinking and behavior which divides rather than unites, dominates rather than shares, and destroys rather than heals. This is the thinking which underlies war, nuclearism, disparity, environmental devastation, and human rights abuses.

    Which kind of thinking do you choose? It is an important question because the world of tomorrow will be rooted in the thinking of today. And your thinking and your acts will help to form the world of tomorrow.

    Forty years ago when Josei Toda called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons his thinking was ahead of its time. But he sowed a seed of peace that has taken root. He referred to nuclear weapons as an “absolute evil.” Nearly four decades later, the International Court of Justice issued its opinion that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal under international law. The Court said that any threat or use of nuclear weapons would be subject to the rules of international humanitarian law. 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. In issuing this opinion, the President of the Court, Mohammed Bedjaoui, wrote, “Atomic warfare and humanitarian law therefore appear to be mutually exclusive; the existence of the one automatically implies the non-existence of the other.” He also referred to nuclear weapons in a manner similar to the way that Josei Toda had referred to them in 1957. He called them the “ultimate evil.”

    In many ways we have been too complacent in tolerating this absolute evil in our world. As citizens of the world, we must confront this evil and demand an end to the nuclear weapons era. I have the following suggestions for you:

    1. Increase your awareness. Inform yourself. One place to start is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s or other similar web sites. The Foundation’s web address is https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com. We also have a free electronic newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides information on the abolition of nuclear weapons and other issues relating to peace in the Nuclear Age. You can sign up for this at the Foundation’s web site. We are publishing a booklet in our Waging Peace Series on Creating a Nuclear Weapons Free World, A Guide for Students and All Concerned Citizens. You can order a copy from our Foundation.

    2. Exercise your citizenship. Speak out. Make your voice heard. If necessary, protest. Demand information, and fight against government secrecy. You have a democratic right to informed consent on government policies. The late ocean explorer, filmmaker and environmentalist, Jacques Cousteau, said, The time has come when speaking is not enough, applauding is not enough. We have to act. I urge you, every time you have an opportunity, make your opinions known by physical presence. Do it!

    3. Sow seeds of peace. You can sow seeds of peace in many ways — by a smile or a kind word, by caring and sharing, by compassion, by demonstrating in your daily acts that life matters, that the Earth matters, that you are committed to creating a safer and saner future.

    4. Support Abolition 2000. This is a worldwide network of over 700 citizen action groups around the world working for a treaty by the year 2000 that calls for the prohibition and elimination of all nuclear weapons in a timebound framework. Sign the Abolition 2000 International Petition, and help circulate it. There is also an Abolition 2000 Resolution for Municipalities and one for College Campuses. You can help in having these enacted in your municipality and on your college campus.

    5. Grow to your full stature as a human being. Think about not only your rights, but your responsibilities as a human being fortunate enough to be alive at this amazing time in history. Recognize that you are a miracle, that all life is a miracle, and treat yourself and all life with the respect due a miracle. One important responsibility of each generation is to assure that the chain of life is not broken. This responsibility is heightened in the Nuclear Age, and thus more is demanded of us all. My greatest hope for each of you is that you will fulfill your promise and potential as human beings, and be a force for peace in a world that is crying out to be healed.

    I would like to end with a story about sunflowers. When the former Soviet Union split apart, Ukraine was left with a large nuclear weapons arsenal. Ukraine agreed, however, to become a nuclear weapons free state, and to send all of the nuclear weapons left on its territory to Russia for dismantlement. When Ukraine completed this transfer in June 1996, the Defense Ministers of Ukraine and Russia along with the Secretary of Defense of the United States commemorated the occasion in an extraordinary way. They scattered sunflower seeds and planted sunflowers on a former Ukrainian missile base which once housed 80 SS-19 nuclear-armed missiles aimed at the United States. Secretary of Defense William Perry said, “Sunflowers instead of missiles in the soil would ensure peace for future generations.”

    Of course, sunflowers alone will not be enough. But sunflowers are a great symbol of hope. They are bright and beautiful. They are hardy and healthy. They make us smile, and they can nourish us. They represent everything that missiles do not. They are life and they affirm life. Nuclear armed missiles, on the other hand, are technological instruments of genocide. They are symbols death and the mass destruction of life.

    Sunflowers have become the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons. They are a powerful symbol, but they are not enough. To achieve a world free of nuclear weapons will require a great effort of citizens united from all parts of the world, and particularly an effort by young people who will inherit tomorrow’s world. I urge you to be part of this effort, and one day we will plant sunflowers to celebrate the end of the nuclear weapons era on our planet.

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

  • The Human Right to Peace Declaration

    Lasting peace is a prerequisite for the exercise of all human rights and duties. It is not the peace of silence, of men and women who by choice or constraint remain silent. It is the peace of freedom – and therefore of just laws – of happiness, equality, and solidarity, in which all citizens count, live together and share.

     

    Peace, development and democracy form an interactive triangle. They are mutually reinforcing. Without democracy, there is no sustainable development: disparities become unsustainable and lead to imposition and domination.

     

    In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations and UNESCO and the United Nations Year for Tolerance, we stressed that it was only through a daily effort to know others better – I am the ‘other’! – and respect them that we would be able to tackle at source the problems of marginalization, indifference, resentment and hatred. This is the only way to break the vicious circle that leads from insults to confrontation and the use of force.

     

    We must identify the roots of global problems and strive, with imagination and determination, to check conflicts in their early stages. Better still prevent them. Prevention is the victory that gives the measure of our distinctively human faculties. We must know in order to foresee. Foresee in order to prevent. We must act in a timely, decisive and courageous manner, knowing that prevention engages the attention only when it fails. Peace, health and normality do not make the news. We shall have to try to give greater prominence to these intangibles, these unheralded triumphs.

     

    A universal renunciation of violence requires the commitment of the whole of society. These are not matters of government but matters of State; not only matters for the authorities, but for society in its entirety (including civilian, military, and religious bodies). The mobilization which is urgently needed to effect the transition within two or three years from a culture of war to a culture of peace demands co-operation from everyone. In order to change, the world needs everyone. A new approach to security is required at world, regional and national levels. The armed forces must be the guarantors of democratic stability and the protection of the citizen, because we cannot move from systems of complete security and no freedom to systems of complete freedom and no security. Ministries of war and defence must gradually be turned into ministries of peace.

     

    Decision-making procedures and measures to deal with emergencies must be specially designed to ensure speed, co-ordination and effectiveness. We are prepared for improbable wars involving the large-scale deployment of inordinately costly equipment, but we are not equipped to detect and mitigate the natural or man-provoked disasters that occur repeatedly. We are vulnerable to the inclemency of the weather, to the vicissitudes of nature. The protection of the citizen must be seen as one of the major tasks of society as a whole if we really wish to consolidate a framework for genuinely democratic living. Investing in emergency help and relief measures and – above all – in prevention and the long term (for example, in continent-wide water distribution and storage networks) is to be prepared for peace, to be prepared to live in peace. Currently, we are prepared for possible war, but find ourselves surprised and defenceless in our daily lives in the face of mishaps of all kinds.

     

    The United Nations system must likewise equip itself with the necessary response capacity to prevent the recurrence of atrocities and instances of genocide such as those which today afflict our collective conscience – Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liberia, Somalia and Rwanda…

     

    There is today a general desire for peace, and we must applaud the clear thinking and strength of mind displayed by all the warring parties in the accords that have been reached in El Salvador, Namibia, Mozambique, Angola, South Africa, Guatemala and the Philippines. These agreements fill us with hope but also sadness, when we think of the lives sacrificed on the long road to the cease-fire, and of the open wounds, so difficult to heal. Thus, as we revive the concept of the ‘construction of peace in the minds of men’, we now call on all adversaries who still put their trust in weapons to lay down their arms and seek reconciliation.

     

    Condemnation will not suffice. It is time for action. It is not enough to feel outrage when we learn of the number of children exploited sexually or at work, of refugees or of those suffering from hunger. We must react, each of us to the best of our abilities. It is not just a matter of looking at what the government is doing. We must part with something of ‘our own’. We must give, give of ourselves. We must stop imposing models of development, models for living. The right to peace, to live in peace, implies jettisoning the belief that some are virtuous and correct while others are wrong, and that some are always giving while others are always in need.

     

    It is clear that we cannot simultaneously pay the price of war and the price of peace. Guaranteeing lifelong education for all would enable us to: control population growth, improve the quality of life, increase civic participation, reduce migratory flows, level out differences in income, assert cultural identity and prevent the destruction of the environment through substantial changes in energy use patterns and urban transport; promote endogenous development and the transfer of knowledge; foster the swift and effective operation of justice, with appropriate machinery for international co-operation; provide the United Nations system with appropriate facilities to tackle transnational problems in time. None of this can be achieved in a context of war. What is needed, then, is to reduce the investment in arms and destruction in order to increase investment in the construction of peace.

     

    The distillation of traditions, thoughts, languages, forms of expression, memories, things forgotten, wishes, dreams, experiments, rejections, culture finds its supreme expression in our everyday behaviour. Infinite cultural diversity is our great resource, which is underpinned – this is our strength – by universal cultural values that must be passed on from the cradle to the grave. Family members – especially mothers – teachers, the media, everyone must help to spread the ethical principles, the universal guidelines that are so necessary today for haves and have-nots alike: the latter because they have a right to the basic minimum standards that human dignity demands; the more fortunate because material goods fail to deliver the expected pleasure. Where there is no longing, possession brings no enjoyment. In education, tools are useful. But nothing can replace the friendly words of a teacher, or the caresses and smiles of parents. The only real education is education by example . . . and love.

     

    Learning without frontiers – whether geographical, or frontiers of age or language – can help to change the world, by eliminating or reducing the many barriers that today impede universal access to knowledge and education. Education must help to strengthen, reclaim and develop the culture and identity of peoples.

     

    Globalization carries with it a danger of uniformity and increases the temptation to turn inwards and take refuge in all kinds of convictions – religious, ideological, cultural, or nationalistic. Confronted with this threat, we must ’emphasize the forms of learning and critical thinking that enable individuals to understand changing environments, create new knowledge and shape their own destinies’. Indigenous peoples must be placed on an equal footing with other cultures, participating fully in the drafting and application of laws. Peace means diversity, a blending – of ‘hybrid, wandering cultures’ as Carlos Fuentes put it; it means multi-ethnic and multilingual societies. Peace is not an abstract idea but one rooted firmly in cultural, political, social and economic contexts.

     

    Above all, this profound transformation from oppression and confinement to openness and generosity, this change based on the daily use by all of us of the verb ‘to share – which is the key to a new future – cannot be achieved without our young people, and certainly not behind their backs. We must tell them – they who represent our hope, who are calling for our help and who seek in us and in external authorities the answers to their uncertainties and preoccupations – that it is in themselves that they must discover the answers, that the motivations and glimpses of light that they are seeking can be found within themselves. Although at times it may be difficult, given both their consternation and our own, to present the situation to them in those terms, our position as lifelong teachers and learners obliges us to say to young people, as Cavafy put it in a poem: ‘Ithaca gave you the journey . . . She has nothing left to give you now’. Each according to his own plan. Each according to his own way of thinking. Free from self-serving outside interference, especially when it robs the young of their own ‘core’, the intellect, talent and resourcefulness which are the most precious individual and collective treasure of humankind. Sects and the escape provided by drug addiction are the clearest symptoms of this pathological state of mind that is our great problem today. Indeed, education means activating this immense potential and using it to its fullest so that each may become the master and architect of his or her own destiny. We cannot give to youth what we no longer possess in youthful vitality but instead we can offer what we have learned through experience, the fruit of our failures and successes, of the burdens, joys, pain, and perplexity and the renewed inspiration of each new moment.

     

    Let youth hold high the banner of peace and justice! So convinced am I of the relevance of this goal to the proper fulfilment of our mission that I have proposed to the General Conference that it designate ‘UNESCO and youth’ as a central topic for discussion at its next session. That will be an appropriate moment since the General Conference will be considering for adoption the ‘Declaration on the Safeguarding of Future Generations’.

     

    At all the United Nations conferences, regardless of the subject under consideration (environment, population, social development, human rights and democracy, women, housing), there has been a consensus that education is the key to the urgently needed change in the direction pursued by todays world, which is increasing disparities in the possession of material goods and knowledge, instead of reducing them. To invest in education is not only to respect a fundamental right but also to build peace and progress for the world’s peoples. Education for all, by all, throughout life: this is the great challenge. One which allows of no delay. Each child is the most important heritage to be preserved. UNESCO may at times give the impression that it is only interested in preserving stone monuments or natural landscapes. That is not true. Those efforts are the most visible. And the heritage thus safeguarded the least vulnerable. But we must protect our entire heritage: the spiritual, the intangible, the genetic heritage – and, especially, ethics. These are the basic, universal values that our Constitution sets forth with inspired clarity. If we sincerely believe that each child is our child, then we must radically change the parameters of the ‘globalization’ currently under way. And the human being must become the beneficiary and main actor of all our policies and strategies.

     

    A system collapsed in 1989 because, concentrating on equality, it forgot liberty. The present system focused on liberty, will know the same fate if it forgets equality – and solidarity. The din made as the ‘Iron Curtain’collapsed drowned out the tremor that ran through the foundations of the ‘winning’ side in the Cold War. We must, then, for the sake of both principle and self-interest, redouble in every field the fight against exclusion and marginalization. We must all feel involved. We must all work to ease the great transition from the logic of force to the force of reason; from oppression to dialogue; from isolation to interaction and peaceful coexistence. But first we must live, and give meaning to life. Eliminating violence: that is our resolve. Preventing violence and compulsion by going, as I said before, to the very sources of resentment, extremism, dogmatism and fatalism. Poverty, ignorance, discrimination and exclusion are forms of violence which can cause – although they can never justify – aggression, the use of force and fratricidal conflict.

     

    A peace consciousness – in the interests of living together, of science and its applications – does not appear overnight, nor can it be imposed by decree. First comes disillusionment with materialism and enslavement to the market, and then a return to freedom of thought and action, sincerity, austerity, the indomitable force of the mind, the key to peace and to war, as affirmed by the founders of UNESCO.

     

    Science is always positive, but the same cannot always be said of its applications. Advances in technology and knowledge can be used to enrich or to impoverish the lives of human beings; they can help to develop their identity and enhance their capacities or, on the contrary, they can be used to undermine the personality and coarsen human talent. Only conscience, which is responsibility – and thus ethical and moral – can make good use of the artefacts of reason. Conscience must work in tandem with reason. To the ethics of responsibility we must add an ethics of conviction and will. The former springs from knowledge, and the latter from passion, compassion and wisdom.

     

    We are now approaching the end of a century of amazing scientific and technological progress: we can diagnose and treat many diseases which cause suffering and death; we communicate with extraordinary clarity and speed; we have at our disposal instant, limitless information. However, antibiotics and telecommunications do not compensate for the bloody conflicts which have cut down millions of lives in their prime and inflicted indescribable suffering on so many innocent people. All the obscenities of war, brought home to us nowadays by audio-visual equipment, do not seem able to halt the advance of the huge war machine set up and maintained over many centuries. Present generations have the almost impossible, biblical task of ‘beating their swords into ploughshares’ and making the transition from an instinct for war – developed since time immemorial – to a feeling for peace. To achieve this would be the best and most noble act that the ‘global village’ could accomplish, and the best legacy to our descendants. With what satisfaction and relief should we be able to look into the eyes of our children! It would be also the best way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in 1998.

     

    Other ‘rights’ have been added since 1948. These should all be taken into account, and to them should be added the right which underlies them all: the right to peace – the right to live in peace! The right to our own ‘personal sovereignty’, to respect for life and dignity.

     

    Human rights! At the dawn of the new millennium, our ideal must be to put them into practice, to add to them, to live and breathe them, to relive them, to revive them with every new day! No one nation, institution or person should feel entitled to lay sole claim to human rights, still less to determine others’ credentials in this regard. Human rights can neither be owned nor given, but must be won and deserved afresh with every passing day. Nor should they be regarded as an abstraction, but rather as practical guidelines for action which should be part of the lives of all men and women and enshrined in the laws of every country. Let us translate the Declaration into all languages; let it be studied in every classroom and every home, all over the world! Today’s ideal may thus become the happy reality of tomorrow! Learning to know, to do, to be and to live together!

     

    In these first days of the new year – a time for taking stock and making plans – I appeal to all families, educators, religious figures, parliamentarians, politicians, artists, intellectuals, scientists, craftworkers and journalists, to all humanitarian, sporting and cultural organizations and to the media to spread abroad a message of tolerance, non-violence, peace and justice. Our aim must be to foster understanding, generosity and solidarity, so that with our minds more focused on the future than on the past, we may be able to look ahead together and build, however difficult the conditions or inhospitable the setting, a future of peace, which is a fundamental right and prerequisite. Thus, ‘We, the people’ will have fulfilled the promise we made in 1945, our eyes still seared by the most abominable images of the terrible conflict that had just ended – ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, ‘to construct the defences of peace in the minds’ of all the peoples of the Earth.

  • Towards Sustainable Societies

    Sustainability

    Sustainability is a value-based aim and process with environmental, technological, political, social, economic and institutional implications. Sustainability requires that we organise our societies so that they evolve in harmony with nature; dominance over nature is a failed option.

    Sustainability calls for a significant reduction in use of global natural resources and a sharing of these resources between individuals, societies and generations so that a maximum of well-being and dignity is achieved for all. It calls also for the creation of safe and peaceful living conditions and for respect for human, cultural and biological diversity.

    The Current Situation

    While encouraging initiatives and possibilities exist, the overall thrust of our economic systems, social structures and science and technology is working against sustainability; radical changes are required to preserve the options for future generations.

    Human activities are producing unprecedented changes in the biosphere, degrading, for example, soil fertility, ground-water supply and biodiversity. We are overusing natural resources, thus eroding our life-support basis; these resources are being used in an inefficient way, creating too little of value, too few jobs, and too much waste; further, there are growing inequalities, both on a national and on a global level, in the distribution of income, labour and wealth derived from the use of the resources; marginalisation of individuals, societies and even whole regions has become a major threat to sustainability. In most countries, employment has become increasingly precarious and poverty is spreading. All these distortions diminish governability, give rise to insecurity and tensions that often result in excessive reliance on military force, and this reliance in turn exacerbates the problems referred to above.

    A Sustainable Future

    A positive alternative to the current situation is the development of new economic, technological and social structures and implementation of societal values, aiming at sustainable societies. Any process of development seeking sustainability should take the following criteria into account:

    • protecting the integrity of the biosphere:
      • practice sustainable agriculture and forestry;
      • preserve marine resources and biodiversity;
      • establish networks of nature protection;
    • efficient use of resources:
      • social innovation in production and product distribution and use;
      • development of new technologies and designs to increase efficiency;
    • self-reliance: enhancement of endogenous production capacity in the non-industrialised countries using all opportunities available, adding value to the resources and creating jobs in the countries and communities of origin;
    • participatory democracy: creation of structures that ensure access without discrimination of any sort including gender or income level to education, participation in civil and political life, health care, food and other resources, and means of production and labour opportunities; these structures should encourage people to bring their creativity into the political planning and decision process, and thus contribute new ideas and life styles to global sustainability;
    • fair trade: establishment of fair trade patterns and regulatory mechanisms
    • peace and non-violence: creation of a culture of non-violence and establishment and strengthening of structures for peaceful resolution of conflicts; prohibition, elimination and verified safeguards against all weapons of mass destruction; severe restrictions on the development, transfer and use of all weaponry.

    The Role of Science and Engineering

    Science and technology have become instrumental to the present patterns of development, and in many countries have evolved from mere instruments into autonomous driving forces; they are as much a part of the problem as they can be a part of the solution. In some societies there is an impressive capacity for technical innovation; however, it is clearer than ever before that not every innovation can be considered as progress. Natural sciences draw their strength frequently from reductionist analysis, thus inherently favouring specialisation and selective perception of problems. Consequently, the solutions proposed often fall short of an integrated approach.

    A thorough reorientation of science and technology is necessary based on integrated system approaches and the acceptance that science can never claim to fully tackle all aspects of reality.

    Only through innovative reorganisation and public accountability can the scientific and engineering communities meet their obligation to contribute to a sustainable future.

    Appeal

    We, the undersigned engineers and scientists, commit ourselves, as professionals and citizens, to work for a sustainable society, and appeal to other colleagues to join us by undertaking the following actions:

    We appeal to decision makers from the scientific and engineering communities wherever possible to:

    • support and fund the integration of sustainable development in programs and projects
    • emphasise a systematic interdisciplinary approach to the development of alternative technologies and the organisation of their use.

    We appeal to the scientific and engineering communities at large and to their institutions to:

    • be open for new, innovative contributions;
    • foster participation, freedom for and encouragement of innovative thinking and openness for ideas from inside and outside the academic community;
    • support integration of, rather than discrimination against, non-mainstream approaches;
    • investigate and promote all means by which deep inequalities between peoples and between countries can be reduced;
    • apply our insights to our own institutions, buildings, and ways of working.

    We commit ourselves in our professional work to:

    • support the sustainability perspective in the way we develop and conduct projects, to foster systemic integration of different disciplines, schools of thought, and regional perspectives wherever possible;
    • uncover all available information about environmentally, socially or otherwise unsustainable developments.

    For many scientists and engineers there is only limited scope for acting; nonetheless, other options apply:

    • to dedicate some of our time (5 to 10 per cent) to active participation in citizens’ organisations;
    • to support personally, financially and scientifically engineers and scientists who are ill-treated or persecuted for having acted for sustainability in their professional work, or for equity and democracy in their country and in international relations.

    Prof. Dr. Ana-Maria Cetto Mexico, Executive Committee Member of INES
    Dr. David Krieger USA, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Gerhard Rohde Switzerland, FIET (International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional & Technical Employees )
    Joachim Spangenberg Germany, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy
    Prof. Dr. Hartwig Spitzer Germany, Chair of the Executive Committee of INES
    Dr. Philip Webber UK, Chair of Scientists for Global Responsibility

  • Article 26

    In considering the need to reform and strengthen the United Nations to better meet its obligations to provide for international peace and security, special attention should be given to Article 26 of the U.N. Charter. There are probably very few people in the world today familiar with this article. Consequently, the Security Council has been able to ignore one of its most important responsibilities for more than 50 years.

    Article 26 states:

    In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

    The language of Article 26 is simple and straight forward. It is not possible to mistake the intent of its directive. The Security Council is given the responsibility for “formulating…a system for the regulation of armaments.”

    The United Nations Charter was signed 50 years ago. In the intervening period of time, the Security Council has failed to carry out this responsibility to the members of the United Nations and through them to the people of the world. In 50 years the Security Council has done exactly nothing to fulfill its Article 26 obligation.

    Under Article 26, the regulation of armaments is not optional for the Security Council. The Article says unambiguously that the Security Council “shall” formulate such a plan. The members of the Security Council have thus breached a solemn duty to the people of the world. Since the non-permanent members of the Security Council rotate at two year intervals, they cannot be held primarily responsible for failing to meet this obligation. It is the five permanent members of the Council — the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China — that have been in violation of their Article 26 obligation for 50 years.

    The reason that the permanent members of the Security Council have been remiss in fulfilling their obligation under Article 26 is not difficult to identify. After all, these states have been the greatest developers, producers, promoters, and sellers of arms. They have profited enormously by the sale of arms throughout the world, and they continue to do so. To fulfill their Article 26 obligation by formulating plans for the regulation of armaments would disadvantage them economically. Their behavior provides clear evidence that they would prefer to promote rather than regulate armaments.

    The Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 26 is described in Article 47 as being composed of “the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives.” The purpose of the Military Staff Committee is “to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulations of armaments, and possible disarmament.”

    The Military Staff Committee is also in breach of its obligation to “advise and assist” the Security Council in carrying out its Article 26 responsibility for formulating plans for the regulation of armaments. Since the Military Staff Committee is composed of representatives of the military forces of the five permanent members of the Security Council, their breach of duty is a further violation of the duty of the five permanent members.

    The United Nations Charter lists as its first purpose to “maintain international peace and security,” and it gives the primary responsibility for carrying out this purpose to the Security Council. When the Security Council fails in meeting its responsibilities, including its responsibility under Article 26, it is the people of the world who suffer. The Councils failure to formulate plans for the regulation of arms under Article 26 has left the world awash in dangerous arms that take their toll daily against opposing military forces as well as innocent civilians and the environment.

    When a nation signs the United Nations Charter it enters into a solemn treaty obligation. In essence, it makes a contract by which it agrees to be bound. While the five permanent members of the Security Council do have special privileges under the Charter, they do not have the privilege of violating the Charter with impunity. When they ignore the provisions of the Charter, as they have done by failing to meet their obligations under Article 26, they are in violation of international law. In simple terms, they have broken the law. Each day that passes without the formulation of plans by the Security Council for the regulation of armaments is an additional day of illegality for the permanent members.

    For 50 years the permanent members of the Security Council have flaunted their illegality with respect to Article 26. They continue to develop, manufacture, promote, and sell armaments of all levels of sophistication throughout the world. They daily demonstrate by their actions and omissions their lack of respect for the law and for their solemn obligations. Day in and day out they place economic benefit and military power ahead of their legal obligations.

    Article 26 stands in silent testimony to the lawlessness of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Article 26 reminds those of us who know of its existence of the disgraceful behavior of the most powerful nations on Earth in failing to meet their legal obligations under the Charter and, in doing so, setting themselves above the law.

    Under the United States Constitution, treaty law is the law of the land. When the United States government signs and ratifies a treaty, it becomes bound by its provisions, and the obligations become part of the United States law. Thus, in its continuing failure to meet its obligations under Article 26, the United States government is in violation not only of the United Nations Charter but U.S. law as well. The buck stops with the president of the United States and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By their failure to even attempt to formulate a plan with the other members of the Security Council, they demonstrate daily contempt for the law, both international and domestic.

    For those who attack the United Nations for its short-comings, of which there are all too many, Article 26 should be a powerful reminder that the United Nations can succeed only if the nations that are its members live up to their legal duties under the Charter. When nations fail to do so and threaten international peace and security, it is the Security Council, with the advice and assistance of the Military Staff Committee, that is charged with preserving the peace.When the Security Council fails to fulfill its obligation to regulate armaments, it is called upon to remedy the consequences of its inaction.

    When the permanent members of the Security Council fail to meet their obligations to the United Nations, it is the General Assembly that must call them to account. If the General Assembly fails to act, it is the people of the world who must step forward and demand that the permanent members of the Security Council fulfill their obligations. A particular responsibility rests with the people of the nations that have permanent seats on the Security Council to call their governments to account and demand that they fulfill their legal obligations to formulate a system for the regulation of armaments under Article 26.

    Four of the five permanent members of the Security council make claim to being democracies, and in these societies ultimate responsibility for government logically rests with the citizenry. Citizens in these states must be educated about Article 26 and must pressure their governments to act legally and responsibily to develop a plan for the worldwide regulation of armaments as called for in Article 26.

    At the same time, other states must also demand that the Security Council fulfill its obligation under Article 26. The failure to regulate armaments has resultedin the escalation of death and destruction in warfare and made the world far more dangerous and deadly.

    It is past time for the Security Council to act decisively on Article 26.

  • Building a Peaceful World

    The end of the Cold War and recent arms reduction agree ments are encouraging signs for peace. In order to fur ther help in building a peaceful world, this paper identifies five major peace forces. In this paper, we attempt to show why these five modern forces are major factors for peace and how they can be used by policy makers in building a sustainable peaceful world. The five factors are equally significant and closely interrelated and have a cumulative impact.

    As with the force of gravity, we are little aware of the forces for peace until they are called to our attention. To better understand and use them we need to think about them on a large-scale and long-term basis.

    Peace Force No. 1 DEMOCRACY *

    Democracy is a powerful force for peace because there has never been a war between independent freely-elected democracies.1 Therefore, if all of the countries of the world became democracies, it is possible we could have a world without war.

    Not only do democracies not fight one another, they fight many fewer wars than nondemocracies. All nations that were independent from 1950 through 1991 and did not change from democracy to nondemocracy or vice versa during the study period were assessed. It was found that only 23 percent of the democracies compared with 72 percent of the nondemocracies were involved in foreign wars. It was also found that there were no internal wars or coups in the democracies, while 90 percent of the nondemocracies had internal wars or violent military coups.2

    R. J. Rummel in his five volume study was able to rigorously show further that not only do democracies not fight one another but that democracies are far less violent than other governments. He wrote, “Of the more than 119 million victims of genocide, killed in cold blood in our century, virtually all were killed by nondemocracies, especially totalitarian ones.” 3

    It is encouraging, therefore, to know that the number of democratic countries in the world has grown from none two centuries ago to a majority (89) now. In addition, there are 32 countries in transition. 4

    Examples of how to help more countries become democratic:

    • Providing economic aid to poorer countries can im prove their economic well-being. In general, as the health, ed u ca tion and economic well-being of a country’s citizens improve, the probability of the nation becoming a democracy increases.5
    • In a 1991 retreat, leaders of the 50-nation Common wealth promised to promote democracy and just gov ern ment. This is a weak commitment, and an effort should be made to have all nations link foreign aid to the human rights records of developing countries, as Britain and Canada have indicated their intent to do. 6
    • Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto proposes an association of emerging democracies. She suggests that an association could share political experience to help members develop democratic methods and exert moral pres sure on nations that violate human rights. 7
    • The U.S. Congress has created and funded the Na tion al Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-private group, to openly help the growth of democracies. This organization and similar organizations have been more effective in helping countries develop democractic governments than the covert and violent activities of the CIA. 8

    *Democracy, in the Studies cited here, includes only independent countries whose legislative bodies and head of government are elected by majority vote from two or more opposing choices by secret ballot, where there is freedom of speech.

    Peace Force No. 2 EQUITABLE COMMERCE

    International trade and investments can be a force for peace if they are based on long-term fairness and mutual trust. If international trade is based on economic exploitation or is based mostly on arms trade it can be a force for war as described in the latter part of this section.

    Modern mass marketing is a powerful force for peace because such commerce is much more profitable when the world is peaceful. Continental markets are much more ef fi cient for mass marketing than small, divided ones. Modern commerce, because of its highly technical nature, can require dependable, long-term, large-scale commitments.

    Most of us are unaware that prosperous modern day living is dependent upon international trade and in vest ment for a vast array of parts for use in agriculture, industry, medicine, communication, and computers. For example, probably few people are aware that British farmers only produce enough food by themselves to support 12 million of Britain’s 56 million people. 9 The research costs and risks of creating and using new highly technical products has become so great that companies look to long-term in ter na tion al partnerships to carry out the work.

    International investments, built on international trade, are a further force for harmony. A vast number of large and small businesses are involved in foreign investments and no one likes to lose their investments. In order to illustrate how large international investments have become, consider the amount invested in the United States by 1990 by the fol low ing countries: Britain, $108 billion; Japan, $83 billion; Neth er lands, $64 billion; Germany, $28 billion; France, $20 billion; and Switzerland, $17 billion. 10

    Paralleling the growth of modern commerce in the world has been the development of vast regions that are at peace with each other. For example, in the 1800s the growing area of internal peace on the North American continent paralleled the growth of railroads as they made mass marketing possible. The growing zone of internal peace started in the Northeast and moved south then westward as large scale trade grew.

    Having a large area, such as the North American continent, with no battles within any of its parts is new to the long history of the world. For instance, prior to the current long peace, the United States fought nearly 2,000 battles in its first hundred years. And now there have been no battles fought on the North American continent for more than 100 years. 11

    The large zone of peace in North America was no accident. It is significant that ethnic and religious groups that are fighting one another in various parts of the world generally are not fighting one another where they live together in more economically developed areas, e.g. North America, Western Europe, Australia.

    Since World War II, there has been an explosive increase in global trade. World trade has increased more than 10 times.12 As world commerce has grown, the number of countries at peace with each other has grown accordingly. Countries at peace with each other for the past 40 years or longer include Canada, the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, Japan, Tai wan, Australia, New Zealand and the countries of Western Europe. All of these countries have developed a high level of commerce among themselves.

    A peaceful world can be built with the already large number of countries with no wars between them. These countries do not even have a threat of war between them. Where they share a common border, the borders are unarmed and they share in a well-established common defense system.

    Examples of how to increase the growth of equitable commerce:

    • Most wars since World War II have occurred in developing countries where the people have few of the necessities to sustain life and are desperately poor. Some modern large-scale farming uses vast land-holdings to operate. To meet this need, giant corporations have acquired many small farms leaving local people with little. For example, in Honduras 67 percent of the population are limited to only 12 percent of the arable land. Nearly 61 percent of the population is malnourished.13 In such situations, if large corporations fail to understand and meet local needs, the danger of civil unrest and war is increased.
    • Economic depressions can drive desperate people in severely depressed countries to support leaders who promise extreme measures, e.g. Hitler. Current efforts to help the Soviet Union economically reflect this concern.
    • International trade agreements can help build friendly relations between countries if they are fair. Hostility is generated if the agreements are not fair, like allowing com panies in some countries to sell for less by ignoring uncon trolled pollution of the environment, paying starvation wages, maintaining unhealthy and unsafe plants. 14
    • Howard Brembeck in his book, The Civilized Defense Plan, tells how nations can collectively use international trade sanctions and/or incentives to cooperatively build security systems against threatening nations. 15

    Peace Force No. 3 WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATION

    A shrinking world allows the public to better observe, un der stand, and respond to global dangers. Today, what seems commonplace, such as daily watching and par tic i pat ing in world events, would not have been possible a few decades ago. Due to rapid growth in the number of television sets, communication satellites, computers, fax machines and tele phones, significant events around the world can be seen, heard, or read about daily by hundreds of millions of people. Jet airplanes allow travel to most places in the world within hours, making it easier to talk directly to others.

    Turner Cable News Network (CNN), with its reporters throughout the world, provides TV news to millions of people around the globe, around the clock. It gives everyone the same basis for discussion by providing the same information at the same moment. CNN has compelled rivals to increase live coverage of international news. This situation allows viewers greater opportunity to form their own opinions of world events.16 World news, however, can still be misleading at times, such as during the Gulf War when large-scale slaughter was shown mostly as a video game.

    The worldwide communication growth pace is in creasing. For example, starting November 1991 World Ser vice Tele vi sion (sponsored by BBC) began beaming news daily into 38 Asian countries with a combined population of 2.7 billion. 17 In India people bought six million TV sets in 1988, up from only 150,000 a decade before. 18

    Examples of how global communication can be a force for peace:

    • The world can see and act against common security threats. Acts of aggression, such as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, can be seen by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. This allows nations to respond to aggressive acts early. For example, more than 100 nations quickly joined in supporting political and economic sanctions, through the United Na tions, against Iraq. This was the largest number of nations in history to support economic sanctions at one time. 19
    • The world is an open stage. It is increasingly difficult for autocratic leaders to keep their people isolated from world events. For instance, the efforts of the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup to control information failed. The Soviet people kept informed of events through cellular phones, fax machines, satellite television, international broadcasts and pocket radios, as well as computers reproducing messages for the public.
    • Worldwide communication can help the growth of democracy. An understanding of freedom is being spread to people who are not now free because TV allows them to see people in other countries experiencing freedom. As businessmen, government leaders, students and tourists travel between countries, they can observe various types of freedom and techniques of self-government.
    • The global public can respond together to worldwide dangers, e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, radiation fall out, etc.

    Peace Force No. 4 REDUCING MILITARISM

    Militaristic nations, those with an excessive arms build-up, are far more likely to go to war. Newcombe and Klaassen found, from 1950 to 1978, that nations with the greatest military expenditures as a percentage of per capita income were 30 times more likely to be involved in an international war than other countries. 20

    Iraq illustrates how a nation’s excessive arms build-up can be a warning signal. In 1984, long before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Iraq was spending a far larger part of its national income for the military (42 percent) than any other country in the world. 21 “Between 1981 and 1988, Iraq purchased an estimated $46.7 billion worth of arms and military equip ment from foreign suppliers, the largest accumulation ever of mod ern weapons by a Third World country.” 22

    Military forces have established an influential political base throughout the developing world. They represent the largest single element in most government bureaucracies and the largest financial resource. They provide the visible trappings of prestige for political leaders, civilian or military: the req ui site honor guards, jet aircraft, helicopters, etc. They have a direct line to the world of wealth and business, the arms-producing corporations that are both beneficiaries of government lar gesse and contributors to political power. And they deal in matters of national security which can be made secret and inaccesible both to the public and to any of the usual checks and balances within the government. Countries under military control have suffered three times as many wars and 19 times as many deaths as in the rest of the Third World countries. 23

    Examples of how reducing militarism can help the growth of peace:

    • The less money developing countries spend on weapons the more chance they have to improve their standard of living, education, and health as well as to become a democracy. In a detailed comparison of 142 countries, it was found that when military spending is high, socio-economic well-being lags.24 In much of the developing world, military expenditures are almost four times the investment for health care and twice that for education.25
    • Among 142 countries in 1987, the United States was number one in military expenditures, military technology, military bases, military training of foreign forces, military aid to foreign countries, naval fleet, combat aircraft, nuclear reactors, nuclear warheads and bombs and nuclear tests, while at the same time, the U.S. ranked 18th in infant mortality rate, 13th in maternal mortality rate, and 18th in population per physician.26
    • While democracies do not fight one another, some de moc ra cies have strong militaristic tendencies. In the last decade, seven of the world’s ten top merchants of offensive weapons, mass destruction weapons parts and weapons fa cil i ties were Western democracies. In 1990, the U.S. was the world’s top weapons supplier. Since World War II there have been over 170 wars and conflicts, mostly involving countries which rely on foreign suppliers for their military needs. 27 De moc ra cies can do much for peace by reducing their sale of arms.

    Peace Force No. 5 COOPERATIVE SECURITY

    Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968, said “[W]e should strive to move toward a world in which relations among nations would be based on the rule of law, a world in which national security would be supported by a system of co op er a tive security, with conflict resolution and peace-keeping functions performed by mul ti lat er al in sti tu tions – a reorganized and strengthened United Nations and new and expanded re gion al organizations, in clud ing an Asian counterpart.” 28

    The role of the U.N. is being forced to change from keeping peace to making peace, as more conflicts continue to erupt, more aid is delivered and more elections are monitored. With 13 current U.N. peacekeeping operations and over 52,000 U.N. troops and police officers on site, the added costs are threatening the U.N.’s continued scope of operations, unless delinquet members pay back dues immediately and make provisions to adequately fund the expanding needs. Also since in the past many worthy peacekeeping resolutions were vetoed by the major powers, the limination of this provision should be seriously coonsidered in the light of present day conditions.

    Randall Forsberg writes, “The end of the Cold War represents a turning point for the role of military force in international affairs. At this unique juncture in history, the world’s main military spenders and arms producers have an unprecedented opportunity to move from confrontation to cooperation. The United States, the European nations, Japan, and the republics of the former USSR can now replace their traditional security policies, based on detterence, nonoffensive defense, nonproliferation, and multilateral peacekeeping. In fact, they have already taken early steps in this direction.”

    Since the end of the Cold War, coun tries are be gin ning to put more em pha sis on work ing through the United Na tions. It is encouraging that the percentage of Americans who think the U.N. is doing a good job has risen from 28% in 1985 to 78% in December 1991.31

    Examples of how to increase cooperative security:

    A great stride forward in civility, human rights and co op er a tive security will occur as nations together create an In ter na tion al Criminal Court addressing these concerns. The atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and those in the former Yugoslavia have rekindled interest in such a court. A working group of the U.N. International Law Commission has recently released a report in which it rec om mends that an International Çriminal Court ‘be es tab lished by a Statute in the form of a treaty.’ 32 The value of an International Criminal Court would be its clear message that the in ter na tion al community is committed to enforcing in ter na tion al law, and that all individuals, no matter how high their position, will be held accountable for crimes under in ter na tion al law.

    Continued emphasis should be given to the U.N. resolution declaring the l990s the Decade of In ter na tion al Law. This resolution embraces four main purposes: (a) to promote acceptance and respect for principles of in ter na tion al law; (b) to pro mote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, in clud ing resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice; (c) to en cour age the progressive development of in ter na tion al law and cod i fi ca tion; and (d) to encourage the teaching, study, dissemination and wider ap pre ci a tion of international law. 33

    The increased use of cooperative security will be assisted by the further growth of the other peace forces described in this paper. The more nations work together in cooperative security, the less will be the burden for all countries involved and the more secure will be each cooperating country.

    Ultimate Goal

    In order to build a sustained peaceful world, we need to consider the basic requirements of humanity. Dr. Hanna Newcombe, in a comprehensive paper, describes the fol low ing basic needs of humanity.

    • The world’s population has to be balanced with a sustainable healthy global environment.
    • All people need democractic governments with basic freedoms assured. If all countries in the world were freely elected democracies, a world without war is possible.
    • A decent standard of living and quality of life is needed for all people, including those in the poorest countries. It is difficult to build a prosperous and peaceful world if there are gross inequalities between people.

    Dr. Newcombe points out that there are upper limits to the world’s physical resources and some sharing will be required. She says, however, there are no limits in the mental realm, and scientific advances can help us meet our long-term basic needs. 34

    Conclusion

    It is sometimes said that due to hate, fear, greed and corruption there will always be war. The fact that the North American continent, with nearly 300 million people living together from all parts of the world, has had no wars between any of its people for more than 100 years demonstrates that war is not inevitable. Up until the end of World War II there was never a year free of war in Europe 35 and since then there has not been a war in Western Europe. Yugoslavia is in Eastern Europe.

    This paper discusses five major forces that make for peace and the ways we can improve them so that we can better build a peaceful world. Much more research needs to be done. The amount of money spent on peace-fostering research by the U.S. government has been less than one percent of what has been spent on research to make weapons more deadly.36 The amount spent in the world for peace research is similarly small compared with the amount spent upon weapons de vel op ment.

    There remains a serious need for more research in the area of building a peaceful world. The more rigorously it can be demonstrated through research how peace-fostering activities and institutions add to our security, the more likely there will be more funds to support these activities and institutions.
    *Dean Babst is a retired government scientist and Coordinator of the Accidental Nuclear War Prevention Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; David Krieger, an attorney and political scientist, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Bud Deraps is a member of the Board of Directors of the Lentz Peace Research Laboratory, St. Louis, Missouri.

    Acknowledgments

    For valuable suggestions to earlier drafts of this paper, we wish to thank: Dr. William Eckhardt, Lentz Peace Research Laboratory, Dunedin, Florida;. Jennifer Glick, Fourth Freedom Forum, Goshen, Indiana; Charles W. Jamison, Esq., Santa Barbara, California; Dr. Hanna Newcombe, Director, Peace Research Institute, Dundas, Canada; Dr. R. J. Rummel, Professor of Political Science, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu; Dr. Leonard Starobin, Editor, World Peace Report, Elkins Park, Penn ylvania; Dudley Thompson, Grass Valley, California.

    References

    1.Babst, Dean V. “A Force for Peace,” Industrial Research, April 1972.

    2. Babst, Dean V. and Eckhardt, William. ‘How Peaceful Are Democracies Compared With Other Countries?,” Peace Re search, Aug. 1992.

    3. Rummel, R. J. “The Politics of Cold Blood,” Society, Nov./Dec. 1989, p. 40.

    4. Mathews, Tom, et. al. “Decade of Democracy,” Newsweek, 30 Dec. 1991.

    5. Babst, Dean V. “Building A World Without War Is Possible,” Global Security Study No. 10, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif. June 1991.

    6. “Commonwealth Pledges to Promote Democracy,” Sacramento Bee, 21 Oct. 1991.

    7. Bigham, Joe. “Help for New Democratic Nations,” Sacramento Bee, 20 Sept. 1991.

    8. Ignatius, David. “The Good Guys Won Without CIA Secrecy,” Sacramento Bee, 6 Oct. 1991.

    9. Holsti, K. J. International Politics – A Framework For Analysis, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1977, p. 242.

    10. “U.S. is still largest debtor,” Sacramento Bee, 3 July 1991.

    11. Babst, Dean V. “Commerce: A Powerful Growing Force For Peace,” Global Security Study No. 9, Nuclear Age Peace Foun da tion, Santa Barbara, Calif., Sept. 1990.

    12. Nulty, Peter. “How the World Will Change,” Fortune, 15 Jan. 1990.

    13. Mead, Walter R. “Bushism Found,” Harper’s Magazine, Sept. 1992.

    14. Feldman, Jonathan. Universities in the Business of Repression, South End Press, 1989, p. 77.

    15. Brembeck, Howard S. The Civilized Defense Plan, Hero Books, Fairfax, Virgina, 1989.

    16. “Man of the Year,” Time, 6 January 1992.

    17. Privat, Pascal, et. al. “The BBC’s New Baby,” Newsweek, 28 Oct. 1991.

    18. Stewart, Thomas A. “How To Manage In The New Era,” Fortune, 15 Jan. 1991.

    19. Webster, William. “Sanctions in the Persian Gulf – Iraq: The Domestic Impact of Sanctions,” Congressional Record, S102, 10 Jan. 1991.

    20. Newcombe, Alan G. and Klaassen, Ruth. “The Pre dic tion of War Using the Tensionmeter,” Peace Research In sti tute, Dundas, Canada, 1983.

    21. Babst, Dean V. and Hardy, Marc. “Positive Power Of Trade,” Background Paper No. 1, Fourth Freedom Forum, July 1991.

    22. “Why can’t Arabs rescue Kuwait?” Sacramento Bee, 25 January 1991 (Quote from Michael Klare’s book, American Arms Supermarket, University of Texas Press)

    23. Sivard, Ruth L. World Military And Social Ex pen di tures, 14th Edition, World Priorities, Washington, D.C., 1991, p. 19.

    24. Ibid, p. 27.

    25. “We Arm the World: U.S. is Number One Weapons Dealer,” The Defense Monitor, Center for Defense In for ma tion, Wash. D.C.Vol. XX, No.4, 1991, p. 3.

    26. Sivard, op. cit. p 46.

    27. The Defense Monitor, Vol. XX, No.4, op. cit, pp. 2 & 3.

    28. McNamara, Robert S. “The Changing Nature of Global Security And Its Impact On South Asia,” Address to the Indian Defense Policy Forum, New Delhi, India on Nov. 20, 1992 published by Washington Council on Non-Pro lif er a tion, Washington D.C., Dec. 1992.

    29. Lewis, Paul. “Peacekeeper Is Now Peacemaker,” New York Times, 25 Jan. 1993.

    30. Forsberg, Randall. “Defense Cuts and Cooperative Se cu ri ty in the Post-Cold War World,” Boston Review, May-July 1992.

    31. Kay, Alan F., et. al. Perception of Globalization, World Structures and Security, Survey #17, Americans Talk Se cu ri ty, Washington, D.C. 25 Nov. – 2 Dec. 1991.

    32. “Report of the Working Group on the Question of In ter na tion al Criminal Jurisdiction,” Report of the In ter na tion al Law Commission, U.N. General Assembly Sup ple ment No. 10 (A/47/10), p. 144.

    33. U.N. General Assembly resolution 44/23, 17 November 1989.

    34. Newcombe, Hanna. “Pax Democratia: Reaching the High Plateau,” paper presented at International Peace Re search Association, Kyoto, Japan, 26-31 July 1992.

    35. Sorokin, Pitrim A. Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol.III, American Book Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1957.

    36. Babst, Global Security Study No. 10, op. cit.

  • A Nonviolent Political Agenda for a More Humane World

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/maguire.pdf

  • A Magna Carta for the Nuclear Age

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/krieger_woetzel.pdf