Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: peace

  • The Fragility of Our Complex Civilization

    The rapid growth of knowledge

    john_averyCultural evolution depends on the non-genetic storage, transmission, diffusion and utilization of information. The development of human speech, the invention of writing, the development of paper and printing, and finally, in modern times, mass media, computers and the Internet: all these have been crucial steps in society’s explosive accumulation of information and knowledge. Human cultural evolution proceeds at a constantly-accelerating speed, so great in fact that it threatens to shake society to pieces.

    In many respects, our cultural evolution can be regarded as an enormous success. However, at the start of the 21st century, most thoughtful observers agree that civilization is entering a period of crisis. As all curves move exponentially upward, population, production, consumption, rates of scientific discovery, and so on, one can observe signs of increasing environmental stress, while the continued existence and spread of nuclear weapons threaten civilization with destruction. Thus, while the explosive growth of knowledge has brought many benefits, the problem of achieving a stable, peaceful and sustainable world remains serious, challenging and unsolved.

    Our modern civilization has been built up by means of a worldwide exchange of ideas and inventions. It is built on the achievements of many ancient cultures. China, Japan, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, the Islamic world, Christian Europe, and the Jewish intellectual traditions, all have contributed.   Potatoes, corn, squash, vanilla, chocolate, chili peppers, and quinine are gifts from the American Indians.

    The sharing of scientific and technological knowledge is essential to modern civilization. The great power of science is derived from an enormous concentration of attention and resources on the understanding of a tiny fragment of nature. It would make no sense to proceed in this way if knowledge were not permanent, and if it were not shared by the entire world.

    Science is not competitive. It is cooperative. It is a great monument built by many thousands of hands, each adding a stone to the cairn. This is true not only of scientific knowledge but also of every aspect of our culture, history, art and literature, as well as the skills that produce everyday objects upon which our lives depend. Civilization is cooperative. It is not competitive.

    Our cultural heritage is not only immensely valuable; it is also so great that no individual comprehends all of it. We are all specialists, who understand only a tiny fragment of the enormous edifice. No scientist understands all of science. Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci could come close in his day, but today it is impossible. Nor do the vast majority people who use cell phones, personal computers and television sets every day understand in detail how they work. Our health is preserved by medicines, which are made by processes that most of us do not understand, and we travel to work in automobiles and buses that we would be completely unable to construct.

    The fragility of modern society

    As our civilization has become more and more complex, it has become increasingly vulnerable to disasters. We see this whenever there are power cuts or transportation failures due to severe storms. If electricity should fail for a very long period of time, our complex society would cease to function. The population of the world is now so large that it is completely dependent on the the high efficiency of modern agriculture. We are also very dependent on the stability of our economic system.

    The fragility of modern society is particularly worrying, because, with a little thought, we can predict several future threats which will stress our civilization very severely. We will need much wisdom and solidarity to get safely through the difficulties that now loom ahead of us.

    We can already see the the problem of famine in vulnerable parts of the world. Climate change will make this problem more severe by bringing aridity to parts of the world that are now large producers of grain, for example the Middle West of the United States. Climate change has caused the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and the Andes. When these glaciers are completely melted, China, India and several countries in South America will be deprived of their summer water supply. Water for irrigation will also become increasingly problematic because of falling water tables. Rising sea levels will drown many rice-growing areas in South-East Asia. Finally, modern agriculture is very dependent on fossil fuels for the production of fertilizer and for driving farm machinery. In the future, high-yield agriculture will be dealt a severe blow by the rising price of fossil fuels.

    Economic collapse is another threat that we will have to face in the future. Our present fractional reserve banking system is dependent on economic growth. But perpetual growth of industry on a finite planet is a logical impossibility. Thus we are faced with a period of stress, where reform of our growth-based economic system and great changes of lifestyle will both become necessary.

    How will we get through the difficult period ahead? I believe that solutions to the difficult problems of the future are possible, but only if we face the problems honestly and make the adjustments which they demand. Above all, we must maintain our human solidarity.

    The great and complex edifice of human civilization is far too precious to be risked in a thermonuclear war. It has been built by all humans, working together. By working together, we must now ensure that it is handed on intact to our children and grandchildren.

    John Avery is a leader in the Danish Pugwash movement.

  • Rejecting the Rule of Law

    The most important lesson one can acquire about US foreign policy is the understanding that our leaders do not mean well. They do not have any noble goals of democracy and freedom and all that jazz. They aim to dominate the world by any means necessary. And as long as an American believes that the intentions are noble and honorable, it’s very difficult to penetrate that wall. That wall surrounds the thinking and blocks any attempt to make them realize the harm being done by US foreign policy.
    — William Blum, former member of the US State Department, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II

    alice_slaterMore than 5,000 satellites have been launched into orbit since the space age began. Today, eleven countries have space launch capability, with over sixty countries operating about 1,100 active satellites orbiting the earth providing a constant stream of data and information relied upon for critical civilian communications as well as for military operations by some. As we grow ever more dependent on the ability of these satellites to perform their essential functions without interruption, there are growing concerns that this useful technology is giving rise to a new battleground in space for the purpose of sabotaging or destroying the vital services our space-based communications now provide.

    The US and Russia have been testing anti-satellite technology (ASAT) since the space age began, and have even contemplated using  nuclear tipped ballistic missiles to destroy space assets. In 1967, the US and Russia  realized it would be in their interest to support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which banned the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space, although they failed to ban the use of conventional weapons in space. And in 1972 they agreed to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) to slow down the space race and the ability to harm each other’s assets in space. Unfortunately, George Bush walked out of the ABM treaty in 2002, and the race to weaponize space was on once again in full force. China is getting into the act too, having launched, in 2007, a device which destroyed one of its aging weather satellites orbiting in space. The US followed suit in 2008, destroying a non-functioning satellite, while both nations denied any military mission for their acts, claiming they were merely trying to destroy outdated satellites that no longer functioned.

    With the proliferation of military spacecraft such as imaging and communications satellites and ballistic missile and anti-missile systems which often pass through outer space, there have been numerous efforts in the UN Committee on Disarmament (CD) to outlaw the weaponization of space through a legally binding treaty. But the United States is having none of it. In the CD, which requires consensus to take action, the US has been the only nation to block every vote to begin negotiations on such a treaty, with Israel generally abstaining in support. Russia and China actually prepared a draft treaty to ban weapons in space in 2008, but the US blocked the proposal, voting against it each year thereafter when it was reintroduced for consideration, saying the proposal was “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage”.

    While continuing to block a legally binding treaty to ban weapons in space, the US has recently begun to work with a group of nations in a new initiative that began in the European Union in 2008, proposing a “Code of Conduct  for Outer Space Activities“  which would lay out a non-binding set of rules of the road for a safer and more responsible environment in space. Some of its key objectives are to mitigate damage to satellites that could be caused by space debris orbiting the earth, to avoid the potential of destructive collisions, and to manage the crowding of satellites and the saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, as well as to address direct threats of hostility to assets in space. At first, the US rejected any support for the Code, but has now agreed to participate in drafting a new version based on the third iteration from the European Union. Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, acknowledged in 2012 the necessity for a Code to deal with orbital debris and “other irresponsible actions in space”, while at the same time, noting that:

    It is important to clarify several points with respect to the code. It is still under development, we would not subscribe to any code unless it protects and enhances our national security, and the code would not be legally binding.

    In addition, the US is insisting on a provision in this third version of the Code of Conduct that, while making a voluntary promise to “refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects”, qualifies that directive with the language “unless such action is justified”. One justification given for destructive action is “the Charter of the United Nations including the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense”, thus lending legitimacy and codifying the possibility for warfare in space as part of the Code’s established norm. And while the Charter of the United Nations prohibits aggressive action by any nation without Security Council approval unless a nation acts in self-defense, we know there have been numerous occasions where nations have by-passed the Security Council to take aggressive action, often protesting they were acting in self-defense. Instead of banning ASAT development and warfare, this Code justifies such warfare as long as it’s done, individually and collectively, under the guise of “self-defense”. Thus despite lacking the force of law that would be established with a legally binding treaty, this new US version of the Code creates, as the norm it is proposing, a possibility for space warfare. Our world deserves better!

    Alice Slater is NAPF’s New York representative and serves on the Council of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

  • When Will They Ever Learn? The American People and Support for War

    When it comes to war, the American public is remarkably fickle.

    Lawrence WittnerThe responses of Americans to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars provide telling examples.  In 2003, according to opinion polls, 72 percent of Americans thought going to war in Iraq was the right decision.  By early 2013, support for that decision had declined to 41 percent.  Similarly, in October 2001, when U.S. military action began in Afghanistan, it was backed by 90 percent of the American public.  By December 2013, public approval of the Afghanistan war had dropped to only 17 percent.

    In fact, this collapse of public support for once-popular wars is a long-term phenomenon.  Although World War I preceded public opinion polling, observers reported considerable enthusiasm for U.S. entry into that conflict in April 1917.  But, after the war, the enthusiasm melted away.  In 1937, when pollsters asked Americans whether the United States should participate in another war like the World War, 95 percent of the respondents said “No.”

    And so it went.  When President Truman dispatched U.S. troops to Korea in June 1950, 78 percent of Americans polled expressed their approval.  By February 1952, according to polls, 50 percent of Americans believed that U.S. entry into the Korean War had been a mistake.  The same phenomenon occurred in connection with the Vietnam War.  In August 1965, when Americans were asked if the U.S. government had made “a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam,” 61 percent of them said “No.”  But by August 1968, support for the war had fallen to 35 percent, and by May 1971 it had dropped to 28 percent.

    Of all America’s wars over the past century, only World War II has retained mass public approval.  And this was a very unusual war – one involving a devastating military attack upon American soil, fiendish foes determined to conquer and enslave the world, and a clear-cut, total victory.

    In almost all cases, though, Americans turned against wars they once supported.  How should one explain this pattern of disillusionment?

    The major reason appears to be the immense cost of war — in lives and resources.  During the Korean and Vietnam wars, as the body bags and crippled veterans began coming back to the United States in large numbers, public support for the wars dwindled considerably.  Although the Afghanistan and Iraq wars produced fewer American casualties, the economic costs have been immense.  Two recent scholarly studies have estimated that these two wars will ultimately cost American taxpayers from $4 trillion to $6 trillion.  As a result, most of the U.S. government’s spending no longer goes for education, health care, parks, and infrastructure, but to cover the costs of war.  It is hardly surprising that many Americans have turned sour on these conflicts.

    But if the heavy burden of wars has disillusioned many Americans, why are they so easily suckered into supporting new ones?

    A key reason seems to be that that powerful, opinion-molding institutions – the mass communications media, government, political parties, and even education – are controlled, more or less, by what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex.”  And, at the outset of a conflict, these institutions are usually capable of getting flags waving, bands playing, and crowds cheering for war.

    But it is also true that much of the American public is very gullible and, at least initially, quite ready to rally ‘round the flag.  Certainly, many Americans are very nationalistic and resonate to super-patriotic appeals.  A mainstay of U.S. political rhetoric is the sacrosanct claim that America is “the greatest nation in the world” – a very useful motivator of U.S. military action against other countries.  And this heady brew is topped off with considerable reverence for guns and U.S. soldiers.  (“Let’s hear the applause for Our Heroes!”)

    Of course, there is also an important American peace constituency, which has formed long-term peace organizations, including Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and other antiwar groups.  This peace constituency, often driven by moral and political ideals, provides the key force behind the opposition to U.S. wars in their early stages.  But it is counterbalanced by staunch military enthusiasts, ready to applaud wars to the last surviving American.  The shifting force in U.S. public opinion is the large number of people who rally ‘round the flag at the beginning of a war and, then, gradually, become fed up with the conflict.

    And so a cyclical process ensues.  Benjamin Franklin recognized it as early as the eighteenth century, when he penned a short poem for  A Pocket Almanack For the Year 1744:

    War begets Poverty,
    Poverty Peace;
    Peace makes Riches flow,
    (Fate ne’er doth cease.)
    Riches produce Pride,
    Pride is War’s Ground;
    War begets Poverty &c.
    The World goes round.

    There would certainly be less disillusionment, as well as a great savings in lives and resources, if more Americans recognized the terrible costs of war before they rushed to embrace it.  But a clearer understanding of war and its consequences will probably be necessary to convince Americans to break out of the cycle in which they seem trapped.

  • Mandela and Gandhi

    Nelson Rohihlahla Mandela (1918-2013) and Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) were two of human history’s greatest leaders in the struggle against governmental oppression. They are also remembered as great ethical teachers. Their lives had many similarities; but there were also differences.

    Similarities:

    Both Mandela and Gandhi were born into politically influential families. Gandhi’s father, and also his grandfather, were Dewans (prime ministers) of the Indian state of Porbandar. Mandela’s great-grandfather was the ruler of the Thembu peoples in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. When Mandela’s father died, his mother brought the young boy to the palace of the Thembu people’s Regent, Chief Jogintaba Dalindyebo, who became the boy’s guardian. He treated Mandela as a son and gave him an outstanding education.

    Both Mandela and Gandhi studied law. Both were astute political tacticians, and both struggled against governmental injustice in South Africa. Both were completely fearless. Both had iron wills and amazing stubbornness. Both spent long periods in prison as a consequence of their opposition to injustice.

    Both Mandela and Gandhi are remembered for their strong belief in truth and fairness, and for their efforts to achieve unity and harmony among conflicting factions. Both treated their political opponents with kindness and politeness.

    When Gandhi began to practice law South Africa, in his first case, he was able to solve a conflict by proposing a compromise that satisfied both parties. Of this result he said, ”My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.”

    Mandela is also remembered as a great champion of reconciliation. Wikipedia describes his period as President of South Africa in the following words:

    “Presiding over the transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy, Mandela saw national reconciliation as the primary task of his presidency. Having seen other post-colonial African economies damaged by the departure of white elites, Mandela worked to reassure South Africa’s white population that they were protected and represented in “The Rainbow Nation”. Mandela attempted to create the broadest possible coalition in his cabinet, with de Klerk as first Deputy President while other National Party officials became ministers for Agriculture, Energy, Environment, and Minerals and Energy, and Buthelezi was named Minister for Home Affairs…” Mandela also introduced, and presided over, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

    Both Gandhi and Mandela believed strongly in the power of truth. Gandhi called this principle “Satyagraha”, and he called his autobiography “The Story of My Experiments With Truth”.

    Mandela’s realization of the power of truth came during the Rivonia Trial (1963-1964), where he was accused of plotting to overthrow the government of South Africa by violence, and his life was at stake. Remembering this event, Mandela wrote: “In a way I had never quite comprehended before, I realized the role I could play in court and the possibilities before me as a defendant. I was the symbol of justice in the court of the oppressor, the representative of the great ideals of freedom, fairness and democracy in a society that dishonored those virtues. I realized then and there that I could carry on the fight even in the fortress of the enemy.”

    During his defense statement, Mandela said: “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and see realized. But my Lord, if it needs to be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

    Although the prosecutor demanded the death penalty, Mandela was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. His defense statement became widely known throughout the world, and he became the era’s most famous prisoner of conscience. The South African apartheid regime was universally condemned by the international community, and while still in prison, Mandela was given numerous honors, including an honorary doctorate in Lesotho, the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding and Freedom of the City of Glasgow. “Free Mandela” concerts were held in England and the UN Security Council demanded his release.

    Finally, as it became increasingly clear that the South African apartheid regime was untenable, Mandela was released in February 1990. He spoke to an enormous and wild cheering crowd of supporters, who had waited four hours to hear him. Four years later, he was elected President of South Africa. He was awarded 250 major honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with de Klerk.

    Both Mandela and Gandhi are considered to be the fathers of their countries. Gandhi is called “Mahatma”, which means “Great Soul”, but he was also known by the affectionate name “Bapu”, which means “father”. Mandela was affectionately called “Tata”, which also means “father”.

    Differences:

    The greatest difference between Mandela and Gandhi concerns non-violence. While Mandela believed that violent protest could sometimes be necessary in the face of governmental violence, Gandhi firmly rejected this idea. He did so partly because of his experience as a lawyer. In carrying out non-violent protests against governmental injustice, Gandhi was making a case before the jury of international public opinion. He thought that he had a better chance of succeeding if he was very clearly in the right.

    Furthermore, to the insidious argument that “the end justifies the means”, Gandhi answered firmly: ”They say that ‘means are after all means’. I would say that ‘means are after all everything’. As the means, so the end. Indeed, the Creator has given us limited power over means, none over end… The means may be likened to a seed, and the end to a tree; and there is the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. Means and end are convertible terms in my philosophy of life.”

    What can we learn from Mandela and Gandhi?

    Today, as never before, governmental injustice, crime and folly are threatening the future of humankind. If our children and grandchildren are to have a future, each of us must work with dedication for truly democratic government, for a just and effective system of international law, for abolition of the institution of war, for abolition of nuclear weapons, for the reform of our economic system, for stabilization of the global population, and for protection of the global environment against climate change and other dangers. This is not the responsibility of a few people. It is everyone’s responsibility. The courage, wisdom and dedication of Mandela and Gandhi can give us inspiration as we approach the great tasks that history has given to our generation.

    Links:

    http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/getImg.pdf

    https://archive.org/details/LongWalkToFreedomNelsonMandela.pdf

  • Avoiding Needless Wars, Part 10: Iran

    Martin HellmanThe interim agreement to freeze Iran’s nuclear program has been praised by some as a diplomatic breakthrough and condemned by others as a prelude to nuclear disaster. A full appraisal must wait until we see what the follow-on agreements, if any, look like. In the meantime, here’s my take:

    1. The only alternative to negotiations is a military strike powerful and sustained enough to not only destroy Iran’s current nuclear program but also to prevent its resurrection. Such actions are impossible in the current political climate — and probably in any environment.

    Domestically, Americans are tired of wars, and our budget is already highly stressed. Internationally, we’ve developed a reputation as a bull in a china shop, so an American attack would be met with howls of indignation. It also would reinvigorate terrorism against Israel as Iran totally unleashed Hezbollah and Hamas.

    A strike which prevented Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons would not be surgical or short lived and might be impossible. At a minimum, it would require hundreds of thousands of American “boots on the ground” for years on end, and cost trillions of dollars. It probably would cost tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives.

    Even with that level of effort, an American invasion probably would fail to achieve its objective since Iran would be a more powerful adversary than either Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which have failed to produce anything that might be called an American victory.

    In 2010, TIME magazine explained why then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates advised against attacking Iran: “Military action, Gates warned, would solve nothing; in fact it would be more likely to drive Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

    Gates’ warning was echoed last year by former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. James Cartwright: “If they [the Iranians] have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that. … They can slow it down. They can delay it, some estimate two to five years. But that does not take away the intellectual capital.”

    Also last year, Yuval Diskin, a former head of Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, warned that, contrary to its intention, attacking Iran might accelerate its nuclear program.

    While a military strike is the only alternative to negotiations, the above arguments show that it is not a viable option. Diplomacy is our only real option, so the question becomes how to practice it most effectively.

    2. Given that diplomacy is our only viable option, we need to recognize that our past negotiating position – and the one Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is demanding be reinstated – is a non-starter.

    There’s no way Iran will dismantle its centrifuges and the rest of its nuclear program based on American promises of sanctions relief, especially when those promises might be rescinded by a new administration in 2015, over-ridden by Congress, or nullified by an Israeli attack.

    Our broken promises to Gaddafi add to Iran’s mistrust. In 2003, when he gave up his nuclear weapons program, President Bush promised that this good behavior would be rewarded. Yet, in 2011, our airstrikes played a key role in toppling and murdering Gaddafi.

    Iran also mistrusts us because we aided Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, even though we knew he was using chemical weapons – an action we later used as part of our tortured logic for deposing him.

    For diplomacy to work, we will have to prove that we have experienced a fundamental change of heart with respect to Iran and are prepared to follow through on the promises we make.

    3. Iran appears to be only months away from being able to make at least a crude nuclear weapon. While there’s plenty of blame to go around, Israel and the US need to stop putting all of the onus on Iran and recognize that we, too, played a part in creating the current mess.

    Repeatedly threatening to attack Iran, including with nuclear weapons (a possibility threatened in President Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review) would have made even the most rational Iranian leaders seek a deterrent. And their leadership over the last 30 years has often been far from rational. Fortunately, the current leadership appears more reasonable, and that’s an opening we need to test. If, instead, we maintain a bellicose posture, we will pull the rug out from under the moderates and empower the hardliners in Iran. Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar recently warned that American and Israeli hawks who mistrust diplomacy may be intentionally trying to strengthen hard-liners in Iran since they, too, oppose diplomacy.

    While our intention was to halt nuclear proliferation, we have actually encouraged it – particularly in Iran and North Korea – with our militarized approach to foreign affairs.

    I don’t like leaving Iran so close to having a nuclear capability, but the alternatives appear  far worse. It’s time to admit that our Iranian policy thus far has been a disaster and try something new – real diplomacy.

    Suggestions for Further Reading

    Harvard’s Belfer Center has a summary of the best arguments both pro and con on the interim agreement.

    Dr. Abbas Milani, Co-Director of the Iran Democracy Project at Stanford’s Hoover Institution has an excellent article assessing Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani.

    Handout #5 from my Stanford seminar on “Nuclear Weapons, Risk, and Hope” applies critical thinking to North Korea and Iran. All handouts are accessible from my Courses Page.

    This article was originally published by Defusing the Nuclear Threat.

  • Inner City Youth Activists Attend NAPF Peace Leadership Training

    A recent NAPF Peace Leadership Training held at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst found new advocates among those living in the inner cities. Young activists involved with Arise for Justice in Springfield learned from NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell how to deal with anger and violent situations, and how to bring the principles of nonviolence into their lives.

    UMASS group

    “I will improve my anger and condone nonviolence . . . They need to expand this workshop to places like Springfield because this workshop is perfect.” — Selassei Walker, 15

    “I wanted to attend this workshop because it’s a great way to find peace within yourself and it just adds another tool to my toolbox for life. Now I will utilize everything I learned in everyday life and let other people know what I’ve learned . . .This is a great workshop that manyyoung people should hear about and be a part of.” — Corey King, 17

    “I’ve learned how to react towards certain situations with the understanding of why violence happens and also how to express myself and which actions and expressions to do/not do during a conflict.” — Courtney Watkins, 20

    “I will utilize what I’ve learned at Arise . . . Non-violence is our most powerful tool against corruption . . . Bring Paul to Arise!” — Frank Cincotta, 22

    “I originally wanted to use the training, to use the tactics at work and everyday environment. I live in a very violent city and this training can be used to inform other youth how to deflate violent confrontations . . . This is something that should be held at local schools and areas where peace is a problem . . . I hope you come to Springfield, MA!” — Julia Scott, 27 (founder of one of the Arise youth groups in Springfield)

    Event planner Mary McCarthy, a member of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice and participant in the first NAPF Peace Leadership Training held in Santa Barbara in summer 2012, is now working to bring Paul Chappell and the Peace Leadership Training to downtown Springfield in the spring of 2014. Springfield is known for having one of the highest crime rates in the country.
    McCarthy said, “Paul Chappell explains that Peace Leadership Training is a gateway. It is inspiring to see young people take in the knowledge of nonviolence, then turn around and want to facilitate positive change in their community…This is the essence of peace work.”

    Within the next several months, Paul Chappell will be giving peace leadership trainings in Uganda, Canada and the University of San Diego Graduate School of Leadership and Education Sciences. Email Paul at pchappell@napf.org for more information.

  • 2013 Peace Poetry Award Winners Announced

    Santa Barbara, CA (October 29, 2013) – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is pleased to announce the winners of the 2013 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Married to Frank King Kelly, one of the founders of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Barbara Mandigo Kelly was a poet, pianist and peace advocate. Since 1995, the Foundation has made an annual series of awards to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. The poetry awards are offered in three categories: Adult; Youth (13 to 18); and Youth (12 and under).

    In the Adult category, Yuko Taniguchi was awarded First Place for her poem “A Child Hibakusha – Hiroshima 1947.” Ms. Taniguchi is the instructor of writing in the Center for Learning Innovation at the University of Minnesota Rochester. She also has conducted creative writing workshops for the Mayo Medical School, as well as the Mayo Foundation’s Cancer Center, as part of the Creative Renewal Series since 2004. Her first volume of poetry, Foreign Wife Elegy, and her first novel, The Ocean in the Closet, were both published by Coffee House Press. She is currently completing a collection of poetry, While the Earth Moves its Spine, which explores the recent earthquake and tsunami disaster in Northeastern Japan.

    An Honorable Mention in the Adult category was awarded to Shawn Pittard from Sacramento, California for his poem “Morning’s Long Argument of Crows.” Mr. Pittard is a poet, screenwriter, and teaching artist. He is the author of two volumes of poetry, one of which, Standing in the River, was the winner of Tebot Bach’s 2010 Clockwise Chapbook Competition.

    A second Honorable Mention in the Adult category was awarded to Aubrey Ryan for “Floodlings.” Ms. Ryan is the Collins Writer in Residence for the Midwest Writing Center and the poetry editor of Sundog Lit. Her work has appeared in Best New Poets, Anti-, Squat Birth Journal, DIAGRAM, Phantom Limb, Quarterly West, and elsewhere. She lives in Iowa with her husband and young son.

    First Place in the Youth (13 to 18) category was awarded to Hayun Cho for her poem “A Necessary Poetry.” Ms. Cho is a freshman at Yale University and aspires to major in English or Literature. Her home town is Wilmette, Illinois.

    An Honorable Mention in the Youth (13 to 18) category was awarded to Leila Grant from Chappaqua, New York for her poem “Trust in Peace.” Ms. Grant enjoys performing circus acts, playing tennis and piano, watching movies and reading. She loves to travel to new places.

    In the Youth (12 and under) category, First Place was awarded to Pratyush Muthukumar from Cerritos, California for his poem “Reach Out.” In addition to writing poetry, his interests include painting, learning Chinese, building robots and running. He attends Frank C. Leal Elementary School.

    For more information, including the other First Place and Honorable Mention poems in their entirety, previous years’ winners and the 2013 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards Guidelines, click here or contact the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

  • 2013 Evening for Peace Remarks

    David KriegerLet me add my welcome to our 30th annual Evening for Peace.  Over the years we’ve honored some remarkable Peace Leaders, and tonight we do so again.

    Thirty-one years ago we founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation with a dream that citizens could make a difference on the most important issues of our time – Peace in the Nuclear Age and the abolition of nuclear weapons.  We knew that what we were doing was important, but we only glimpsed the full potential of what the Foundation could be and how much we were needed in the world.

    Since our founding, the world has dismantled more than 50,000 nuclear weapons.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is there are still 17,000 in the world, and one is too many.  A relatively small regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan could result in a global nuclear famine taking the lives of upwards of a billion people.  A full-scale nuclear war would end civilization and most complex life on the planet.  So, there remains important work to do.

    I want to offer a few words of advice and encouragement to the young people here tonight.  I have five brief points.

    1. Be citizens of the world, embrace the world, see it in all its magnificence, and work to make it a more decent place for all.
    2. Be leaders of today; don’t wait for tomorrow.  The truth is that we need you now, and what you do now will help shape the future.
    3. Always choose hope.  Hope inspires action, as action inspires hope.
    4. Never give up.  To accomplish any great thing requires perseverance.
    5. Finally, learn how you can strengthen your vision and skills by working with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Find out more about the Foundation at wagingpeace.org.

    Now, a few words of thanks to our supporters in the room and beyond.

    • Thank you for caring so deeply.
    • Thank you for joining your dreams of a better world with ours.
    • Thank you for making possible what we do each day to build peace and abolish nuclear arms.

    It is a rare and beautiful thing to have an organization like this Foundation, through which people can work day in and day out for the noble goals of assuring humanity’s future.  If you would like to become more involved in the Foundation’s work, let us know.

    Now, it is my great pleasure to introduce you to our honoree, Rabbi Leonard Beerman.

    We honor him as the co-founder, with George Regas, of the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Arms Race – an Interfaith Center that made it clear that nuclear weapons are a paramount moral issue of our time.

    We honor him as a wise and compassionate man.

    We honor him as a man of conscience and uncommon decency.

    When peace has needed a voice, Rabbi Beerman has spoken.

    When justice has needed an ally, Rabbi Beerman has stood firm.

    When dark clouds of war have gathered, Rabbi Beerman has been a ray of light.

    When nuclear weapons have put all that we love and treasure at risk, Rabbi Beerman has been a source of hope and moral strength.

    On behalf of the Directors and members of the Foundation, I am very pleased to present to Rabbi Leonard Beerman the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2013 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • 30th Annual Evening for Peace Honors Leonard Beerman

    Santa Barbara, CA – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will present its 2013 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Rabbi Leonard Beerman at the 30th Annual Evening for Peace, Sunday, Oct. 27, at La Pacifica Ballroom and Terrace, Four Seasons Resort, The Biltmore.

    The Distinguished Peace Leadership Award is presented annually to individuals who have demonstrated courageous leadership in the cause of peace. This year’s recipient, Rabbi Beerman, is a unique peace leader; a blend of intellect, integrity, compassion and a deep commitment to peace with justice. In 1979, he and Reverend George Regas co-founded the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Arms Race, an organization that awakened religious leaders and, through them, their congregations, to the realization that the abolition of nuclear weapons is a profoundly moral issue.

    As the rabbi of Leo Baeck Temple in West Los Angeles for 37 years before retiring in 1986, he could always be counted on to take a stand against human suffering. He counseled conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. Cesar Chavez spoke from his pulpit, as did Daniel Ellsberg just before his Pentagon Papers trial.

    For years, Rabbi Beerman has fought for peace and justice and brought conscience and faith to bear upon the many important peace and disarmament issues of our time. He has inspired countless women and men who have gone on to work on issues of peace and justice in their communities and beyond.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has a rich history of honoring remarkable leaders who pursue peace. Past recipients include the XIVth Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Ted Turner, Captain Jacques-Yves Cousteau, and Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan are among many other distinguished leaders.

    In addition to raising much-needed funds to support the Foundation’s work for a world free of nuclear weapons, the event’s program is designed to celebrate and encourage leadership for a more peaceful and just world. Over 80 students from local colleges and high schools will be able to attend this year’s event thanks to sponsors who have underwritten the cost of their tickets.

    The evening will begin at 5:30 P.M. with a reception and silent auction on the Biltmore’s La Pacifica Terrace to be followed by the awards program and dinner at 6:30 P.M. in the La Pacifica Ballroom.

    To learn more about the Evening For Peace, visit www.wagingpeace.org or call the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at 805-965-3443.

  • Are Nuclear Weapons Really the U.S.’s Instruments of Peace?

    David KriegerThere are serious problems with communications in a society when mainstream media sources, such as the Washington Post, will publish articles touting nuclear weapons as instruments of peace and ignore serious rebuttals.  The Post recently published an op-ed, “Nuclear weapons are the U.S.’s instruments of peace,” by Robert Spalding, a Military Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  The title really speaks for itself.  The article can be read here.

    I sent a response to the Washington Post in the form of a letter to the editor, but it was not published by them.  My letter, which is under their 200-word limit, sought to point out some of the fallacies in Mr. Spalding’s op-ed.  Here it is:

    “Robert Spalding’s enchantment with nuclear weapons would keep the US prepared to refight the Cold War for decades.  But nuclear weapons do not make the U.S. more secure.  Rather, they make us targets, and they spur nuclear proliferation.   A major nuclear war would destroy civilization and possibly all complex life on the planet.  A regional nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons each on the other side’s cities would put enough soot into the stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons, cause crop failures and result in a billion deaths worldwide.

    “Nuclear deterrence is not foolproof because we humans, despite our best efforts, are fallible, as convincingly demonstrated at Fukushima.  Spalding is dead wrong.  It is not only through strength that peace can be obtained; it is also through diplomacy, cooperation, international law and a generosity of spirit in our foreign policy.  Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral and ultimately uncontrollable.  They are a path not to peace, but to catastrophe.  In our own interests, the US should lead in negotiating their elimination from the planet.”

    Nuclear weapons place at risk everyone we love and everything we treasure.  They have no place in a civilized society, and US leaders should be doing all they can to fulfill our obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue negotiations for their total elimination from the planet.  But this will not happen if the mainstream media provides a one-sided view that “nuclear weapons are the U.S.’s instruments of peace.”  They are hardly that, and our continued reliance upon them will encourage nuclear proliferation and eventually result in nuclear war by accident or design.