Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: speech

  • Speech in Berlin

    Hello, Berlin!  (Applause.)  Thank you, Chancellor Merkel, for your leadership, your friendship, and the example of your life — from a child of the East to the leader of a free and united Germany.

    As I’ve said, Angela and I don’t exactly look like previous German and American leaders.  But the fact that we can stand here today, along the fault line where a city was divided, speaks to an eternal truth:  No wall can stand against the yearning of justice, the yearnings for freedom, the yearnings for peace that burns in the human heart.  (Applause.)

    Mayor Wowereit, distinguished guests, and especially the people of Berlin and of Germany — thank you for this extraordinarily warm welcome.  In fact, it’s so warm and I feel so good that I’m actually going to take off my jacket, and anybody else who wants to, feel free to.  (Applause.)  We can be a little more informal among friends.  (Applause.)

    As your Chancellor mentioned, five years ago I had the privilege to address this city as senator.  Today, I’m proud to return as President of the United States.  (Applause.)  And I bring with me the enduring friendship of the American people, as well as my wife, Michelle, and Malia and Sasha.  (Applause.)  You may notice that they’re not here.  The last thing they want to do is to listen to another speech from me.  (Laughter.)  So they’re out experiencing the beauty and the history of Berlin.  And this history speaks to us today.

    Here, for thousands of years, the people of this land have journeyed from tribe to principality to nation-state; through Reformation and Enlightenment, renowned as a “land of poets and thinkers,” among them Immanuel Kant, who taught us that freedom is the “unoriginated birthright of man, and it belongs to him by force of his humanity.”

    Here, for two centuries, this gate stood tall as the world around it convulsed — through the rise and fall of empires; through revolutions and republics; art and music and science that reflected the height of human endeavor, but also war and carnage that exposed the depths of man’s cruelty to man.

    It was here that Berliners carved out an island of democracy against the greatest of odds.  As has already been mentioned, they were supported by an airlift of hope, and we are so honored to be joined by Colonel Halvorsen, 92 years old — the original “candy bomber.”  We could not be prouder of him.  (Applause.)  I hope I look that good, by the way, when I’m 92.  (Laughter.)

    During that time, a Marshall Plan seeded a miracle, and a North Atlantic Alliance protected our people.  And those in the neighborhoods and nations to the East drew strength from the knowledge that freedom was possible here, in Berlin — that the waves of crackdowns and suppressions might therefore someday be overcome.

    Today, 60 years after they rose up against oppression, we remember the East German heroes of June 17th.  When the wall finally came down, it was their dreams that were fulfilled.  Their strength and their passion, their enduring example remind us that for all the power of militaries, for all the authority of governments, it is citizens who choose whether to be defined by a wall, or whether to tear it down.  (Applause.)

    And we’re now surrounded by the symbols of a Germany reborn.  A rebuilt Reichstag and its glistening glass dome.  An American embassy back at its historic home on Pariser Platz.  (Applause.)  And this square itself, once a desolate no man’s land, is now open to all.  So while I am not the first American President to come to this gate, I am proud to stand on its Eastern side to pay tribute to the past.  (Applause.)

    For throughout all this history, the fate of this city came down to a simple question:  Will we live free or in chains?  Under governments that uphold our universal rights, or regimes that suppress them?  In open societies that respect the sanctity of the individual and our free will, or in closed societies that suffocate the soul?

    As free peoples, we stated our convictions long ago. As Americans, we believe that “all men are created equal” with the right to life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  And as Germans, you declared in your Basic Law that “the dignity of man is inviolable.”  (Applause.)  Around the world, nations have pledged themselves to a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the inherent dignity and rights of all members of our human family.

    And this is what was at stake here in Berlin all those years.  And because courageous crowds climbed atop that wall, because corrupt dictatorships gave way to new democracies, because millions across this continent now breathe the fresh air of freedom, we can say, here in Berlin, here in Europe — our values won.  Openness won.  Tolerance won.  And freedom won here in Berlin.  (Applause.)

    And yet, more than two decades after that triumph, we must acknowledge that there can, at times, be a complacency among our Western democracies.  Today, people often come together in places like this to remember history — not to make it.  After all, we face no concrete walls, no barbed wire.  There are no tanks poised across a border.  There are no visits to fallout shelters.  And so sometimes there can be a sense that the great challenges have somehow passed.  And that brings with it a temptation to turn inward — to think of our own pursuits, and not the sweep of history; to believe that we’ve settled history’s accounts, that we can simply enjoy the fruits won by our forebears.

    But I come here today, Berlin, to say complacency is not the character of great nations.  Today’s threats are not as stark as they were half a century ago, but the struggle for freedom and security and human dignity — that struggle goes on.  And I’ve come here, to this city of hope, because the tests of our time demand the same fighting spirit that defined Berlin a half-century ago.

    Chancellor Merkel mentioned that we mark the anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s stirring defense of freedom, embodied in the people of this great city.  His pledge of solidarity — “Ich bin ein Berliner” — (applause) — echoes through the ages.  But that’s not all that he said that day.  Less remembered is the challenge that he issued to the crowd before him:  “Let me ask you,” he said to those Berliners, “let me ask you to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today” and “beyond the freedom of merely this city.”  Look, he said, “to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.”

    President Kennedy was taken from us less than six months after he spoke those words.  And like so many who died in those decades of division, he did not live to see Berlin united and free.  Instead, he lives forever as a young man in our memory.  But his words are timeless because they call upon us to care more about things than just our own self-comfort, about our own city, about our own country.  They demand that we embrace the common endeavor of all humanity.

    And if we lift our eyes, as President Kennedy called us to do, then we’ll recognize that our work is not yet done.  For we are not only citizens of America or Germany — we are also citizens of the world.  And our fates and fortunes are linked like never before.

    We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.  (Applause.)  We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered.  We may enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of the world, but so long as hundreds of millions endure the agony of an empty stomach or the anguish of unemployment, we’re not truly prosperous.  (Applause.)

    I say all this here, in the heart of Europe, because our shared past shows that none of these challenges can be met unless we see ourselves as part of something bigger than our own experience.  Our alliance is the foundation of global security.  Our trade and our commerce is the engine of our global economy.  Our values call upon us to care about the lives of people we will never meet.  When Europe and America lead with our hopes instead of our fears, we do things that no other nations can do, no other nations will do.  So we have to lift up our eyes today and consider the day of peace with justice that our generation wants for this world.

    I’d suggest that peace with justice begins with the example we set here at home, for we know from our own histories that intolerance breeds injustice.  Whether it’s based on race, or religion, gender or sexual orientation, we are stronger when all our people — no matter who they are or what they look like — are granted opportunity, and when our wives and our daughters have the same opportunities as our husbands and our sons.  (Applause.)

    When we respect the faiths practiced in our churches and synagogues, our mosques and our temples, we’re more secure.  When we welcome the immigrant with his talents or her dreams, we are renewed.  (Applause.)  When we stand up for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and treat their love and their rights equally under the law, we defend our own liberty as well.  We are more free when all people can pursue their own happiness.  (Applause.)  And as long as walls exist in our hearts to separate us from those who don’t look like us, or think like us, or worship as we do, then we’re going to have to work harder, together, to bring those walls of division down.

    Peace with justice means free enterprise that unleashes the talents and creativity that reside in each of us; in other models, direct economic growth from the top down or relies solely on the resources extracted from the earth.  But we believe that real prosperity comes from our most precious resource — our people.  And that’s why we choose to invest in education, and science and research.  (Applause.)

    And now, as we emerge from recession, we must not avert our eyes from the insult of widening inequality, or the pain of youth who are unemployed.  We have to build new ladders of opportunity in our own societies that — even as we pursue new trade and investment that fuels growth across the Atlantic.

    America will stand with Europe as you strengthen your union.  And we want to work with you to make sure that every person can enjoy the dignity that comes from work — whether they live in Chicago or Cleveland or Belfast or Berlin, in Athens or Madrid, everybody deserves opportunity.  We have to have economies that are working for all people, not just those at the very top.  (Applause.)

    Peace with justice means extending a hand to those who reach for freedom, wherever they live.  Different peoples and cultures will follow their own path, but we must reject the lie that those who live in distant places don’t yearn for freedom and self-determination just like we do; that they don’t somehow yearn for dignity and rule of law just like we do.  We cannot dictate the pace of change in places like the Arab world, but we must reject the excuse that we can do nothing to support it.  (Applause.)

    We cannot shrink from our role of advancing the values we believe in — whether it’s supporting Afghans as they take responsibility for their future, or working for an Israeli-Palestinian peace — (applause) — or engaging as we’ve done in Burma to help create space for brave people to emerge from decades of dictatorship.  In this century, these are the citizens who long to join the free world.  They are who you were.  They deserve our support, for they too, in their own way, are citizens of Berlin.  And we have to help them every day.  (Applause.)

    Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons — no matter how distant that dream may be.  And so, as President, I’ve strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduced the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.  Because of the New START Treaty, we’re on track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s.  (Applause.)

    But we have more work to do.  So today, I’m announcing additional steps forward.  After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.  And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.  (Applause.)

    At the same time, we’ll work with our NATO allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe.  And we can forge a new international framework for peaceful nuclear power, and reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking.

    America will host a summit in 2016 to continue our efforts to secure nuclear materials around the world, and we will work to build support in the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and call on all nations to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.  These are steps we can take to create a world of peace with justice.  (Applause.)

    Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet.  The effort to slow climate change requires bold action.  And on this, Germany and Europe have led.

    In the United States, we have recently doubled our renewable energy from clean sources like wind and solar power.  We’re doubling fuel efficiency on our cars.  Our dangerous carbon emissions have come down.  But we know we have to do more — and we will do more.  (Applause.)

    With a global middle class consuming more energy every day, this must now be an effort of all nations, not just some.  For the grim alternative affects all nations — more severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees, coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise.  This is the future we must avert.  This is the global threat of our time.  And for the sake of future generations, our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate before it is too late.  That is our job.  That is our task.  We have to get to work.  (Applause.)

    Peace with justice means meeting our moral obligations.  And we have a moral obligation and a profound interest in helping lift the impoverished corners of the world.  By promoting growth so we spare a child born today a lifetime of extreme poverty.  By investing in agriculture, so we aren’t just sending food, but also teaching farmers to grow food.  By strengthening public health, so we’re not just sending medicine, but training doctors and nurses who will help end the outrage of children dying from preventable diseases.  Making sure that we do everything we can to realize the promise — an achievable promise — of the first AIDS-free generation.  That is something that is possible if we feel a sufficient sense of urgency.  (Applause.)

    Our efforts have to be about more than just charity.  They’re about new models of empowering people — to build institutions; to abandon the rot of corruption; to create ties of trade, not just aid, both with the West and among the nations they’re seeking to rise and increase their capacity.  Because when they succeed, we will be more successful as well.  Our fates are linked, and we cannot ignore those who are yearning not only for freedom but also prosperity.

    And finally, let’s remember that peace with justice depends on our ability to sustain both the security of our societies and the openness that defines them.  Threats to freedom don’t merely come from the outside.  They can emerge from within — from our own fears, from the disengagement of our citizens.

    For over a decade, America has been at war.  Yet much has now changed over the five years since I last spoke here in Berlin.  The Iraq war is now over.  The Afghan war is coming to an end.  Osama bin Laden is no more.  Our efforts against al Qaeda are evolving.

    And given these changes, last month, I spoke about America’s efforts against terrorism.  And I drew inspiration from one of our founding fathers, James Madison, who wrote, “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”  James Madison is right — which is why, even as we remain vigilant about the threat of terrorism, we must move beyond a mindset of perpetual war.  And in America, that means redoubling our efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo.  (Applause.)  It means tightly controlling our use of new technologies like drones.  It means balancing the pursuit of security with the protection of privacy. (Applause.)

    And I’m confident that that balance can be struck.  I’m confident of that, and I’m confident that working with Germany, we can keep each other safe while at the same time maintaining those essential values for which we fought for.

    Our current programs are bound by the rule of law, and they’re focused on threats to our security — not the communications of ordinary persons.  They help confront real dangers, and they keep people safe here in the United States and here in Europe.  But we must accept the challenge that all of us in democratic governments face:  to listen to the voices who disagree with us; to have an open debate about how we use our powers and how we must constrain them; and to always remember that government exists to serve the power of the individual, and not the other way around.  That’s what makes us who we are, and that’s what makes us different from those on the other side of the wall.  (Applause.)

    That is how we’ll stay true to our better history while reaching for the day of peace and justice that is to come.  These are the beliefs that guide us, the values that inspire us, the principles that bind us together as free peoples who still believe the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. — that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  (Applause.)

    And we should ask, should anyone ask if our generation has the courage to meet these tests?  If anybody asks if President Kennedy’s words ring true today, let them come to Berlin, for here they will find the people who emerged from the ruins of war to reap the blessings of peace; from the pain of division to the joy of reunification.  And here, they will recall how people trapped behind a wall braved bullets, and jumped barbed wire, and dashed across minefields, and dug through tunnels, and leapt from buildings, and swam across the Spree to claim their most basic right of freedom.  (Applause.)

    The wall belongs to history.  But we have history to make as well.  And the heroes that came before us now call to us to live up to those highest ideals — to care for the young people who can’t find a job in our own countries, and the girls who aren’t allowed to go to school overseas; to be vigilant in safeguarding our own freedoms, but also to extend a hand to those who are reaching for freedom abroad.

    This is the lesson of the ages.  This is the spirit of Berlin.  And the greatest tribute that we can pay to those who came before us is by carrying on their work to pursue peace and justice not only in our countries but for all mankind.

    Vielen Dank.  (Applause.)  God bless you.  God bless the peoples of Germany.  And God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

  • Hiroshima: City of Hope

    David Krieger delivered this speech on May 25, 2013 in Hiroshima, Japan.

    David KriegerI am honored to be back in Hiroshima with you for this occasion, and I congratulate the Chugoku Shimbun on the fifth anniversary of its Hiroshima Peace Media Center.  I am a strong supporter of this Center, and of other efforts to use the media to awaken people to the necessity of achieving a durable peace in the Nuclear Age.

    I extend a special greeting to former Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, who did such important work in building the Mayors for Peace into a global organization of more than 5,000 members.  He currently serves as the chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations that work with middle power countries in seeking to apply pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    The room we are in today is called “Himawari,” which means sunflower.  This is an appropriate place to meet, since sunflowers are the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons.  What could stand in starker contrast than natural, beautiful, brightly-colored sunflowers, which, bursting with life, grow toward the sun, and the metallic, manmade instruments of massive murder that are nuclear weapons and their delivery systems?

    Hiroshima is a place made sacred by pain, suffering, forgiveness and perseverance in the cause of peace of its hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombing).   I would like to say to the hibakusha at the symposium that your efforts and your messages matter, that your words and deeds have touched people’s hearts throughout the world, including my own, and continue to do so.  You have the power of truth and compassion on your side.

    To the young people at the symposium, I want to stress how important it is to have hope and to carry on working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons in the spirit of the hibakusha.  I would like to impress upon you that Hiroshima is a city of hope and it is, at least in part, your responsibility to carry forward that hope.  Without hope, our way would be lost and our future bleak.

    Hiroshima

    The bombing of Hiroshima was the kind of atrocity that can only be created in the cauldron of war, a human institution that has become totally dysfunctional.  The destruction of Hiroshima split the 20th century nearly in half and, more importantly, provided a dividing line in human history.  Before Hiroshima, nearly all of human experience and history unfolded.  Much of it was creative and beautiful – the beauty of song, art, literature, friendship and love – but there were certainly grave atrocities and vivid examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

    After the bombing of Hiroshima, man’s inhumanity to his fellow man took on a deeper and darker meaning, as it became possible to destroy everything.  With the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, genocide gave way to the potential for omnicide, the death of all.  Genocide – the destruction of a people based upon race, religion or ethnicity – was bad enough, but omnicide made possible the end of human and other complex life on the planet.  We humans must rapidly increase our capacity for learning, tolerance and love, or face the dire and devastating consequences of nuclear war.

    Hiroshima is both a city and a symbol.  It is a modern city and one that is quite beautiful.  But it is also a city recognized throughout the world as a universal symbol of the strength of humans to overcome adversity.  The hibakusha of Hiroshima have said clearly: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.”  This is a deep insight that we need to collectively internalize.  Those of us alive on the planet today must decide whether we continue to tolerate nuclear weapons and those who promote them, or whether we draw the line at the potential for human extinction and work to abolish these weapons.

    I have had the opportunity in my life to meet many of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I have found that their lives are filled with purpose, that is, to assure that their past does not become someone else’s future.  The hibakusha have been to the depths of Hell and survived to reflect upon and share what they experienced on the fateful day of the bombing of Hiroshima and during the days, weeks, months and years of suffering that followed the bombing.  They returned from that place of horror with hope in their hearts.  By their willingness to forgive and by their constant efforts to end the nuclear weapons era, they have nurtured hope and kept it alive for all these years.

    Poems

    Over the years, I have written a number of poems and reflections about Hiroshima and the hibakusha.  These have been published in Japan by Coal Sack Publishers in a book in Japanese and English entitled God’s Tears, Reflections on the Atomic Bombs Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I would like to share two of these poems with you.  I share them because I want to reach your hearts.  Logic is not enough.  The heart must be engaged to save our world.  The first poem is dedicated to Miyoko Matsubara, a very committed hibakusha of Hiroshima who came to Santa Barbara and worked with us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in developing her presentation skills in English.

    THE DEEP BOW OF A HIBAKUSHA
    for Miyoko Matsubara

    She bowed deeply.  She bowed deeper than the oceans.  She bowed from the top of Mt. Fuji to the bottom of the ocean.  She bowed so deeply and so often that the winds blew hard.

    The winds blew her whispered apologies and prayers across all the continents.  But the winds whistled too loudly, and made it impossible to hear her apologies and prayers.  The winds made the oceans crazy.  The water in the oceans rose up in a wild molecular dance.  The oceans threw themselves against the continents.  The people were frightened.  They ran screaming from the shores.  They feared the white water and the whistling wind.  They huddled together in dark places.  They strained to hear the words in the wind.

    In some places there were some people who thought they heard an apology.  In other places there were people who thought they heard a prayer.

    She bowed deeply.  She bowed more deeply than anyone should bow.
    GOD RESPONDED WITH TEARS

    The plane flew over Hiroshima and dropped the bomb
    after the all clear warning had sounded.

    The bomb dropped far slower than the speed of light.
    It dropped at the speed of bombs.

    From the ground it was a tiny silver speck
    that separated from the silver plane.

    After 43 seconds, the slow falling bomb exploded
    into mass at the speed of light squared.

    Einstein called it energy.  Everything lit up.
    For a split-second people could see their own bones.

    The pilot always believed he had done the right thing.
    The President, too, never wavered from his belief.

    He thanked God for the bomb.  Others did, too.
    God responded with tears that fell far slower

    than the speed of bombs.
    They still have not reached Earth.

    The Nuclear Dilemma

    Nuclear weapons create a dilemma.  If some countries continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their perceived security, sooner or later these weapons will be used again.  The use of nuclear weapons could result in the extinction of the human species and other forms of complex life.  Nuclear weapons place humans on the Endangered Species list.

    And yet, although we humans should be mobilizing against the threat posed by these weapons of mass annihilation, we remain remarkably indifferent to them.  This suggests one of four possibilities or some combination of them:

    1. we are ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons;
    2. we don’t believe that the weapons will actually be used;
    3. we have fear fatigue;
    4. we believe that there is little that can be done by individuals to influence nuclear policy.

    It is unlikely that many of us are actually ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.  Most people on the planet know what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the relatively small nuclear weapons of the time.  In each case, one bomb destroyed one city.  The terrible destructive power of these bombs has been vividly conveyed by the hibakusha.

    It is possible that, having lived with nuclear weapons for more than two-thirds of a century, many individuals believe they will not be used again.  But this is a denial of possibilities.  So long as the weapons exist in the arsenals of some nations, neither their use nor their proliferation can be ruled out.  Martin Hellman, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford University, finds there is a one-in-six chance of a child born today dying of nuclear war during his or her 80-year lifespan.  This is the equivalent of playing Nuclear Roulette with the life of that child – and all children.  Psychologically, it may be more comfortable to live in denial, but it is not more secure.

    When one is fearful for a long period of time, fatigue sets in.  A person may be viewed as a prophet at a later time for having given warnings about survival threats in his or her own time, but in one’s own time one may be seen as crazy for continuing to shout warnings about such threats.  For most people, fear fatigue sets in and they move on to take care of other areas of life.  Thankfully, this isn’t the case for the hibakusha and for many abolitionists who continue to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    There are few people who can influence the course of human events by themselves, but collectively we can wield considerable influence.  To assure that nuclear weapons are not used again, they must be abolished.  We must join with others to achieve this goal – in the largest coalitions possible.  I am deeply grateful to the hibakusha for their leadership in this effort.

    Nuclear weapons are a technological triumph of the worst possible sort.  We humans must triumph over our destructive technologies.  We have created ever more powerful tools and these tools exert power over us.  Our tools must be designed to aid us constructively rather than to threaten our very existence.

    We must regain power over our tools if humankind is to survive.  We can only do this collectively.  We must unite rather than divide.  We must cross borders in our minds and in our hearts.  We must care for each other, and we must begin by eliminating the overriding threat of nuclear annihilation.  The solution is not technological; it is human.  It requires us to think about what really matters to us and to act accordingly.

    We Must Change our Thinking

    Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.  He changed the way we look at the universe.  His theories described the relationship between energy and matter that led to releasing the power of the atom.  Einstein was not only intelligent; he was wise.  Early in the Nuclear Age, he pointed out, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  He saw clearly that the Nuclear Age had opened a new era in human history, an era in which the destructive power of nuclear weapons made peace an imperative.

    The opening curtain of the Nuclear Age, which occurred here at Hiroshima, started the clock ticking on a race between finding new ways to forge friendships across borders and succumbing to the old patterns of war, but now with weapons incapable of being controlled in time or space. Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and 9 other prominent scientists issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto on July 9, 1955.  It is one of the most important documents of the 20th century and now for the 21st century.  It states, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?  People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.”

    Yes, it is difficult to abolish war, but it is made necessary by the terrible devastation that occurred here in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, and that occurred again at Nagasaki three days later.  Nuclear weapons have made possible the extinction of the human race and other forms of complex life.  In this sense, they have made us one world, a global Hiroshima, uniting us in danger and in the opportunity to change.

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto concluded: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom.  Shall we, instead choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels?  We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.  If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    The organization that I founded and where I have served as president for the past 30 years is called the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  The name means that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  I hope that we are carrying on in the tradition of Russell and Einstein.  Our mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.”

    We are motivated in our efforts by the spirit of Hiroshima and its hibakusha. In Santa Barbara, we have created a peace garden named for Sadako Sasaki.  Each year on or around Hiroshima Day we hold a ceremony of remembrance with music, poetry and reflections in this beautiful and tranquil garden.  Sadako’s paper cranes have indeed flown all over the world.

    Each year we give a Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to an outstanding peace leader.  Recipients have included the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Jody Williams and Dr. Helen Caldicott.  Two years ago, our award was presented to Mayor Akiba and, at the same time, we presented a World Citizen Award to Shigeko Sasamori on behalf of all hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the parties to the treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament, and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament.  Such negotiations have not taken place.  The International Court of Justice in interpreting the treaty stated, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”  This obligation has existed since the NPT entered into force in 1970.  For 43 years, this obligation has been largely ignored by the five nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty (US, Russia, UK, France and China).  In addition, the negotiations have been ignored by three states not parties to the treaty that have developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and by North Korea, which withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and also developed and tested nuclear weapons.

    Each day the nuclear weapon states act illegally under international law by failing to fulfill their obligations to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion.  In addition to acting illegally, they are behaving in a way that threatens the human future.  Their inaction is intolerable and unworthy of the responsibility they have accepted.

    I was recently in Geneva at the Second Preparatory Meeting of the parties for the 2015 NPT Review Conference.  I found the conference to be notable for five reasons:

    First, there was virtually no progress on the nuclear disarmament goal of the treaty.

    Second, there was enthusiasm among the non-nuclear weapons states that carried over from the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.  In relation to this, 80 countries signed on to a Joint Statement introduced by South Africa to underline the severe humanitarian consequences of nuclear war and to call for a ban on nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, Japan was not one of these 80 countries.  This statement said in part, “The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.”  I think this is a statement that would resonate with the hibakusha of Hiroshima.  Nonetheless, the Japanese government continues to support US nuclear policy rather than the reasonable aspirations of the hibakusha for significant progress toward a world without nuclear weapons.  The Japanese government needs to bring its policies in line with the spirit of the hibakusha.

    Third, the failure to hold a conference, as promised, on the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East became a point of serious contention.  The Egyptian Ambassador to Geneva, Hisham Badr, walked out of the conference expressing disappointment with the failure of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to convene the conference, which had been scheduled to be held in Finland in December 2012.  He stated, “Egypt and many Arab countries have joined the NPT with the understanding that this would lead to a Middle East completely free of nuclear weapons.  However, more than 30 years later one country in the Middle East, namely Israel, remains outside the NPT.”  The Secretary-General of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), described the postponement of the conference, along with the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, as “alarming factors.”  She called for replacing “nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”

    Fourth, the US and Russia were busy patting themselves on their respective backs for their 2010 New START agreement to reduce the number of their deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side by 2018.  However, when asked whether their new relationship made possible a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons, both countries had little to say.

    Fifth, despite claims to the contrary, all of the NPT nuclear weapon states continue to be engaged in modernizing their respective nuclear forces.  The US, for example, said in its Working Paper for the conference, “On modernization, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads nor will its Life Extension Programs support new military missions or provide new military capabilities.”  However, the US is planning to spend upwards of $10 billion for upgrading its B61 gravity bombs that are now stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey and giving them new tailfins that will turn them into guided weapons.

    East Asia

    The situation in East Asia remains dangerous.  North Korea joined the nuclear weapons “club” in 2006.  Other nuclear weapon states active in the region are the US, Russia and China.  Japan, although not a nuclear weapon state, has enough reprocessed plutonium to become a nuclear-armed state within months and to make a few thousand nuclear weapons in a relatively short time.  While Japan has consistently said that it will not do this, it must be viewed as a virtual nuclear weapon state.  At the same time, Japan has placed itself under the nuclear umbrella of the United States and has tended to support US nuclear policy in international forums.  Japan’s dependence upon the US for nuclear deterrence seems likely to be the reason that Japan has been supportive of US nuclear policy and has not been more supportive of the position of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Most Americans are not attentive to the position of the Japanese government on nuclear issues.  However, US leaders view Japan as an important element in its security plan for East Asia.  Because Japan is a close ally of the US, Japan could potentially assert an influence over US nuclear policy if Japan were to support the position of the hibakusha, take a strong stand for nuclear weapons abolition, and step out from under the US nuclear umbrella.  It would have to do so while at the same time assuring the world that it would continue its policy of renouncing war and not itself developing a nuclear arsenal.  Japan would be the most appropriate country to lead the world, including the US, toward good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.  In doing so, it would be keeping faith with international law as well as with the hibakusha.

    A Time for Boldness

    The nuclear weapon states have put off their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament for too long.  They have proven that they are not serious about fulfilling their obligations under international law.  The non-nuclear weapon states have warned of the dangers of continuing with the status quo, but to no avail.  Meek warnings have not been sufficient and are no longer acceptable.  It is a time for boldness and an assertion of hope that change is possible.

    There have been no good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament – only excuses.  Enough is enough.  It is time for action to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity – action reflecting that nuclear deterrence is a hypothesis about human behavior rather than a reliable defense.  It is not a defense at all.

    Action is needed that ends the two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty calls for leveling the playing field by eliminating all existing nuclear weapons.  If the nuclear weapon states fail to fulfill their obligations, the playing field may well be leveled in the wrong direction by the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    Examples of Bold 

    One possibility would be a boycott of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference if the nuclear weapon states have not yet begun to fulfill their obligations for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Another possibility would be for countries to set a deadline for withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty if sufficient progress toward nuclear disarmament obligations is not achieved.

    Still another bold move would be for non-nuclear weapon states to begin negotiating among themselves for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons – and call upon the nuclear weapons states to join them.  This is the call of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and I strongly endorse it.

    Hope

    Despair is a recipe for giving up, while hope keeps us energized to achieve what may seem like impossible goals.  Hope is a choice.  It keeps us going to achieve what is necessary.  Nuclear weapons have had their day, and it has been a dangerous and destructive day.  That day is over, both because these weapons are inequitable and because they are cruel and indiscriminating as between civilians and combatants.  They are 20th century dinosaurs.

    Hope is related to boldness.  It gives us the power to think in a new way, to speak truth to power, and to act resolutely, as the circumstances require.

    Conclusion

    Over the years, the US and Russia relied upon a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction with the acronym MAD (meaning crazy).  Now, it has become clear that with the use of nuclear arsenals there is also the possibility of Self-Assured Destruction with the acronym SAD.  It is Self-Assured Destruction because the attacking side, even without retaliation from the other side, may destroy its own side due to nuclear famine and nuclear winter.  But SAD has another meaning as well.  It can also stand for Stupid Arrogant Denial.  This may be said of leaders and countries that do not take seriously their obligations for nuclear abolition.

    Our greatest challenge now is to move from MAD and SAD (in both its meanings) to PASS, which stands for Planetary Assured Security and Survival.  This is the path that the hibakusha have walked and they have led the way in making Hiroshima a city of hope.  Now, it is up to us to join the hibakusha in carrying forward the torch of truth that will end the nuclear weapons era.  Our task is to assure human survival and that of other creatures on the only planet we know of in our vast universe that supports the miracle of life. This remains the greatest challenge of our time.

    It is a noble challenge and an urgent one.  It demands our best efforts.  We must act as though the very future depended upon our compassion, commitment and courage.  It does.  Let us follow the path of the hibakusha.  I will end with a final poem.

    Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen
    For every hibakusha
    there is a pilot
    for every hibakusha
    there is a planner
    for every hibakusha
    there is a bombardier
    for every hibakusha
    there is a bomb designer
    for every hibakusha
    there is a missile maker
    for every hibakusha
    there is a missileer
    for every hibakusha
    there is a targeter
    for every hibakusha
    there is a commander
    for every hibakusha
    there is a button pusher
    for every hibakusha
    many must contribute
    for every hibakusha
    many must obey
    for every hibakusha
    many must be silent

    We must respect and honor the existing hibakusha with our voices and our acts of peace.  The best way we can do this is by assuring that no new hibakusha are created.  The best way we can do this is by achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • I Wrote Bush’s War Words- In 1965

    President Bush’s explanation Tuesday night for staying the course in Iraq evoked in me a sense of familiarity, but not nostalgia. I had heard virtually all of his themes before, almost word for word, in speeches delivered by three presidents I worked for: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon. Not with pride, I recognized that I had proposed some of those very words myself.

    Drafting a speech on the Vietnam War for Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in July 1965, I had the same task as Bush’s speechwriters in June 2005: how to rationalize and motivate continued public support for a hopelessly stalemated, unnecessary war our president had lied us into.

    Looking back on my draft, I find I used the word “terrorist” about our adversaries to the same effect Bush did.

    Like Bush’s advisors, I felt the need for a global threat to explain the scale of effort we faced. For that role, I felt China was better suited as our “real” adversary than North Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh, just as Bush prefers to focus on Al Qaeda rather than Iraqi nationalists. “They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they [sic] tried to shake our will on Sept. 11, 2001,” he said.

    My draft was approved by McNamara, national security advisor McGeorge Bundy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, but it was not delivered because it was a clarion call for mobilizing the Reserves to support an open-ended escalation of troops, as Johnson’s military commanders had urged.

    LBJ preferred instead to lie at a news conference about the number of troops they had requested for immediate deployment (twice the level he announced), and to conceal the total number they believed necessary for success, which was at least 500,000. (I take with a grain of salt Bush’s claim that “our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job.”)

    A note particularly reminiscent in Bush’s speech was his reference to “a time of testing.” “We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America’s resolve,” he said.

    This theme recalled a passage in my 1965 draft that, for reasons that will be evident, I have never chosen to reproduce before. I ended by painting a picture of communist China as “an opponent that views international politics as a whole as a vast guerrilla struggle … intimidating, ambushing, demoralizing and weakening those who would uphold an alternative world order.”

    “We are being tested,” I wrote. “Have we the guts, the grit, the determination to stick with a frustrating, bloody, difficult course as long as it takes to see it through….? The Asian communists are sure that we have not.” Tuesday, Bush said: Our adversaries “believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat.”

    His speechwriters, like me, then faced this question from the other side. To meet the enemy’s test of resolve, how long must the American public support troops as they kill and die in a foreign land? Their answer came in the same workmanlike evasions that served Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon: “as long as we are needed (and not a day longer) … until the fight is won.”

    I can scarcely bear to reread my own proposed response in 1965 to that question, which drew on a famous riposte by the late U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban missile crisis: “There is only one answer for us to give. It was made … by an American statesman … in the midst of another crisis that tested our resolution. Till hell freezes over.”

    It doesn’t feel any better to hear similar words from another president 40 years on, nor will they read any better to his speechwriters years from now. But the human pain they foretell will not be mainly theirs.

    Daniel Ellsberg is a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council and is currently a Foundation Fellow. He worked in the State and Defense departments under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. He released the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971. Daniel Ellsberg is the recipient of the Foundation’s 2005 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • Opening Speech at the World Tribunal on Iraq

    Let me express at the outset, on behalf of the Panel of Advocates our profound gratitude to the convenors of this Istanbul session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) for their exceptional effort, and at the same time acknowledge the extraordinary contributions of the twenty earlier sessions of the WTI that have produced invaluable testimony and results that have increased awareness the world over of the criminality of the Iraq War. This unprecedented process of truth-telling about an ongoing war has produced what can best be described as ‘a tribunal movement’ of which this Istanbul session is the culminating phase to date of this process.

    The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) is remarkable for two principal reasons: WTI bears witness to the depth and persistence of the popular mobilization of people throughout the world in opposition to the Iraq War. Such a mobilization against a particular war has never occurred before on such a scale. It started with the massive street demonstrations before the war on Feb. 15, 2003 in which some 11 million people took part in 80 countries and more than 600 urban communities. The WTI gives a continuing legal, moral, and political expression to this anti-war opposition which itself has entered a new phase: an insurgent war of liberation being waged in resistance to the illegal occupation of the country by the greatest military power in the history of the world. In this struggle, the Iraqi people are being denied their fundamental rights of self-determination, first by aggression and then by a cruel and criminal dynamic occupation.

    The second reason for claiming historical significance on behalf of WTI relates to this initiative of, by, and for citizens to hold leaders accountable for severe violations of international law, especially in relation to matters of war and peace. It is not that this is an entirely new idea. The first such effort was inspired by the eminent British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, who convened such a tribunal back in 1967 to assess the legal responsibility of the United States and its leaders for the Vietnam War. It gathered testimony and documented the massive abuses of Vietnamese sovereignty by a devastating war that took millions of innocent Vietnamese lives. Above all, this citizens’ tribunal was a cry of anguish intended to break the wall of silence behind which the crimes associated with the Vietnam War were daily committed. The Russell Tribunal in turn led to the formation of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal, located in Rome, operating since 1976 to reinforce the claims of international law by filling in the gaps where governments and even the United Nations are unable and unwilling to act, or even to speak. The WTI continues and extends this tradition of refusing to be silent or to be silenced. It accepts as a responsibility of democracy the obligation of citizens to insist on the relevance and applicability of international law to every use of force. This insistence includes a demand for criminal accountability, whenever a government disavows its commitment to respect international law. It is primarily to honor this commitment to uphold international law that this tribunal has been organized, and its mission is to confirm the truth of the allegation directed at the United States and the United Kingdom, while also extending to all governments that support directly or indirectly the Iraq War.

    We should be aware that such a commitment by the WTI is part of a longer journey of international law that has evolved by stages that can be identified.

    The initial stage was to create in some authoritative way the norms of law, morality, and politics associated with the prohibition of wars of aggression. The legal culmination of this process occurred in 1928 when leading states, including the United States and the UK, ratified without qualification the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an instrument of National Policy, also known as the Kellogg-Brand Pact;

    This was followed by a second stage that attached criminal consequences to the violation of this norm prohibiting aggressive war through establishing accountability. The criminal trial of German and Japanese leaders after World War II, the Nuremberg Judgment issued in 1945 was a milestone in this process. The Judgment declared: “To initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” and although Nuremberg was flawed by being an example of “victors’ justice,” the American prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, made what has been described as the Nuremberg Promise in his closing statement: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us” This promise has been broken, but such behavior is not acceptable, and we are gathered in part to insist even now that the promise that every state will pay the consequences if it wages a war of aggression.

    This treaty pledge to renounce aggressive war informed the United Nations Charter. The Charter imposes a core obligation on Members to refrain from the use of force in international relations except in circumstances of self-defense strictly defined and under the authority of the Security Council. It also, in a spirit relevant to the WTI, confirmed in its opening words that it is the peoples of the world and not the governments or even the UN that have been entrusted with the ultimate responsibility for upholding this renunciation of war: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” that set forth the duties of states in the UN Charter. This tribunal is dedicated to precisely this undertaking as a matter of law, as an imperative of morality and human rights, and as an engagement with the politics of global justice.

    Of course, this tribunal does not pretend to be a normal court of law with powers of enforcement. At the same time, it is acting on behalf of the peoples of the world to uphold respect for international law. When governments and the UN are silent, and fail to protect victims of aggression, tribunals of concerned citizens possess a law-making authority. Their unique contribution is to tell the truth as powerfully and fully as possible, and by such truthfulness to activate the conscience of humanity to resist. The US Government told a pack of lies in its feeble attempt to find a legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. The WTI will expose these lies by presenting evidence and testimony. The task of exposing lies and confirming truth has become easier as a result of the release of the Downing Street memos. These official documents show that British and American officials understood fully that the Iraq War was unlawful, and not only did they go ahead, but they fabricated evidence to build a completely dishonest legal case. Neither governments, nor the UN, nor most of the media will tell this story of deception, destruction, and criminality. It is the mission of the WTI, building on the efforts of the 20 or so earlier citizens’ tribunals, to tell this story and to appeal to the peoples of the world to join with the people of Iraq in opposing aggression against Iraq. The tribunal is formed on the basis of a Panel of Advocates and a Jury of Conscience. The Panel will present the evidence and the Jury will draw legal, moral, and political conclusions and offer recommendations. The pledge of advocates and jurors is to act in an honest, non-partisan, independent, and objective spirit to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

    This tribunal differs from a normal court of law in the following main respects:

    –it is an organ of civil society, not of the state;

    –its essential purpose is to confirm the truth, not to discover it;

    –its jurors are dedicated, informed, and committed citizens of the world, not neutral and indifferent individuals of the community;

    –its advocates are knowledgeable, wise and decent, but not legally trained specialists;

    –its trust for the future is not based on violence and police, but on conscience, political struggle, and public opinion.

    Nevertheless, we claim for this tribunal the authority to declare the law and to impose its judgment and to hope — hope that a demonstration of this criminality will not fall on deaf ears, but will awaken and exercise the peoples of the world to intensify their resistance to America’s plans for world domination and stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people.

    We need to realize that the Iraq war is the eye of a larger global storm. The storm expresses the fury of this American project to dominate the world by force of arms, to exploit the peoples of the world through the medium of economic globalization, and to administer its idea of security from its Washington headquarters. This project of World Empire hides its true colors beneath the banner of anti-terrorism. It justifies every abuse by pointing to the September 11 attacks. These attacks, even if they are what is claimed, do not justify aggression against states or the torture of individuals. We should remember that the imperial brain trust said before September 11 that only “a new Pearl Harbor” would produce the political climate needed to achieve global hegemony. And they got a new Pearl Harbor, or did they? Read David Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor and you will never be able to take 9/11 at face value in the future. The convenors of the WTI are mindful of this wider context of the Iraq War.

    It should also be observed that Turkey is an appropriate site for this culminating session of the WTI, remembering that earlier sessions of the WTI in all regions of the world have gathered evidence of the illegality of the Iraq War and the criminal policies and practices that have been associated with its conduct. To begin with, Turkey stands at the crossroads between the old European geopolitical core and the Third World periphery. Earlier Russell, PPT initiatives were European. Now the moral, political, and legal platform is moving away from the Christian West. It was Turkey’s proudest moment when its parliament refused the request of the US Government to mount the invasion of Iraq from Turkish territory; this represented an expression of an increasingly robust democratic process here in Turkey. Turkey is also a natural site for the tribunal because it is an important neighbor of Iraq, and suffers a variety of bad consequences from the war and the turmoil in the region that has resulted. And further, the Turkish government has been complicit with the Iraq war, as well as with the preceding period of sanctions, by allowing its territory to be used for a strategic base that has been extensively used for the bombing of Iraq ever since 1990. It is a purpose of this tribunal to show that such complicity engages legal responsibility for Turkey, and for other governments in the region that support directly or indirectly such aggressive war making.

    A special concern of the WTI is to take sharp issue with American claims of exception whether based on an alleged freedom to wage war anywhere on the planet as a result of the 9/11 attacks or securing an exemption for itself in relation to the basic obligation to uphold international law. The pernicious American exceptionalism contradicts completely the role played by the United States in seeking to promote the Rule of Law, the Nuremberg approach, and the UN Charter after 1945. The claim of exception moves in two directions: it operates, first of all, as an explicit effort to exempt Anerican leaders from individual accountability for violating international law, specifically in relation to the recently established International Criminal Court; and secondly, in relation to the lawless barbarism of the detention of alleged terrorist and insurgency suspects being held in such notorious outposts of torture and official evil as Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq and Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo. This tribunal stands against such outrageous claims of exception, and operates beneath the jurisprudential principle that no government or leader is above the law and that every government and leader is criminally accountable for failures to uphold international law. If governments and the UN are unwilling to pass judgment, it is up to initiatives by citizens of the world to perform this scared duty. The WTI has been formed against the background of these essential beliefs.

    It should also be understood that the WTI views the Iraq War as part of this wider assault by the United States, and the UK, against wider prospects for a just world order. These prospects depend upon respecting the sovereign rights of all states, of working to achieve human rights, including economic, social, and cultural rights for all peoples, and to struggle on behalf of a humane world order, including a far more equitable world economy that is indispensable for achieving a sustainable world peace.

    There was a tart in this direction made during the 1990s, although amid an array of contradictions. But it is worth noting these progressive moves that have been stymied by the wars of aggression launched by the United States by relying upon the pretext of a war against terrorism. It is worth observing because it is important to revive these moves toward humane global governance based on the principles of global justice:

    –the spread of democracy, and especially the rise of global civil society and of global social movements in the area of environment, human rights, women, and peace;

    –the increased support for human rights by civil society actors and governments around the world;

    –the attention given to the remembrance and partial erasure of historic grievances toward indigenous peoples on all continents, toward the victims of forced labor, including so-called “comfort women” during World War II, toward the descendants of slavery;

    –and most of all, to the revival of Nuremberg ideas about criminal accountability, challenging impunity – the Chilean dictator Pinochet was indicted by Spain and detained by Britain; the UN established tribunals to prosecute those responsible for ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia and for genocide in Rwanda; and over the objections of the leading states, the ICC was brought into existence due to the active coalition of hundreds of NGOs working together with dozens of governments dedicated to establish a framework for applying international criminal law.

    Such positive steps have been derailed, at least temporarily, by the firestorm released in the world by the US Government since the September 11 attacks. This tribunal hopes that truth-telling with respect to Iraq will also revive the emergent normative revolution of the 1990s, making us move again in the Puerto Alegre direction of insisting that “another world is possible,” and adding, “if possible, it is necessary,” and with this affirmation, the WTI will not only stimulate resistance to appression and solidarity with victims, but will revive the vision of the 1990s that can be best summarized as the cause of “moral globalization.”

  • Iraq and the War on Terrorism

    Delivered to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco

    Introduction

    Like all Americans I have been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of intense, focused and enabled hatred that brought about September 11th, and which at this moment must be presumed to be gathering force for yet another attack. I’m speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

    First Thing First: War On Terrorism

    To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

    We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

    I don’t think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don’t know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.

    Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment — right now — is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

    Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and for that matter any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as America’s new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that “from an advertising point of view, you don’t launch a new product line until after labor day.” Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

    We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress — since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.

    I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South — groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam. It is worth noting, however, that the conditions in 1991 when that resolution was debated in Congress were very different from the conditions this year as Congress prepares to debate a new resolution. Then, Saddam had sent his armies across an international border to invade Kuwait and annex its territory. This year, 11 years later, there is no such invasion; instead we are prepared to cross an international border to change the government of Iraq. However justified our proposed action may be, this change in role nevertheless has consequences for world opinion and can affect the war against terrorism if we proceed unilaterally.

    Secondly, in 1991, the first President Bush patiently and skillfully built a broad international coalition. His task was easier than that confronted his son, in part because of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Nevertheless, every Arab nation except Jordan supported our military efforts and some of them supplied troops. Our allies in Europe and Asia supported the coalition without exception. Yet this year, by contrast, many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far opposed to what President Bush is doing and the few who support us condition their support on the passage of a new U.N. resolution.

    Third, in 1991, a strong United Nations resolution was in place before the Congressional debate ever began; this year although we have residual authority based on resolutions dating back to the first war in Iraq, we have nevertheless begun to seek a new United Nations resolution and have thus far failed to secure one.

    Fourth, the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own.

    Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a “no” vote — even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme — in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide’s misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to “focus on the war.” Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation “reprehensible.” The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show.

    The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration’s failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run — even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

    By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network — much as we manage to squander in one year’s time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine — of preemption.

    The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

    The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

    The Bush Administration may now be realizing that national and international cohesion are strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the Administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies.

    On the domestic front, the Administration, having delayed almost —months before conceding the need to create an institution outside the White House to manage homeland defense, has been willing to see progress on the new department held up, for the sake of an effort to coerce the Congress into stripping civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees.

    Far more damaging, however, is the Administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale.

    Regarding other countries, the Administration’s disdain for the views of others is well documented and need not be reviewed here. It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.

    At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law ..

    Dangers Of Abandoning Iraq

    Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

    We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

    If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, “that’s for the Iraqis to come together and decide.”

    During one of the campaign debates in 2000 when then Governor Bush was asked if America should engage in any sort of “nation building” in the aftermath of a war in which we have involved our troops, he stated gave the purist expression of what is now a Bush doctrine: “I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. We’re going to have a kind of nation building corps in America? Absolutely not.”

    The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself. The absence of enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise to Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. By contrast the enlightened vision embodied in the Marshall plan, NATO, and the other nation building efforts in the aftermath of World War II led directly to the conditions that fostered prosperity and peace for most the years since this city gave birth to the United Nations.

    Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army’s efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden’s plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again. A mere two years after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Following a brilliant military campaign, the U.S. abandoned the effort to destroy Saddam’s military prematurely and allowed him to remain in power.

    What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

    What Congress Should Do

    I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

    Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

    The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.

    Pre-Emption Doctrine

    Last week President Bush added a troubling new element to this debate by proposing a broad new strategic doctrine that goes far beyond issues related to Iraq and would effect the basic relationship between the United States and the rest of the world community. Article 51 of the United Nations charter recognizes the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right in some circumstances to take pre-emptive actions in order to deal with imminent threats. President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear — any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves — and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.”

    This is because President Bush is presenting us with a proposition that contains within itself one of the most fateful decisions in our history: a decision to abandon what we have thought was America’s mission in the world — a world in which nations are guided by a common ethic codified in the form of international law — if we want to survive.

    America’s Mission In The World

    We have faced such a choice once before, at the end of the second World War. At that moment, America’s power in comparison to the rest of the world was if anything greater than it is now, and the temptation was clearly to use that power to assure ourselves that there would be no competitor and no threat to our security for the foreseeable future. The choice we made, however, was to become a co-founder of what we now think of as the post-war era, based on the concepts of collective security and defense, manifested first of all in the United Nations. Through all the dangerous years that followed, when we understood that the defense of freedom required the readiness to put the existence of the nation itself into the balance, we never abandoned our belief that what we were struggling to achieve was not bounded by our own physical security, but extended to the unmet hopes of humankind. The issue before us is whether we now face circumstances so dire and so novel that we must choose one objective over the other.

    So it is reasonable to conclude that we face a problem that is severe, chronic, and likely to become worse over time.

    But is a general doctrine of pre-emption necessary in order to deal with this problem? With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the answer is clearly not. The Clinton Administration launched a massive series of air strikes against Iraq for the state purpose of setting back his capacity to pursue weapons of mass destruction. There was no perceived need for new doctrine or new authorities to do so. The limiting factor was the state of our knowledge concerning the whereabouts of some assets, and a concern for limiting consequences to the civilian populace, which in some instances might well have suffered greatly.

    Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

    If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein’s advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point. But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

    At the same time, the concept of pre-emption is accessible to other countries. There are plenty of potential imitators: India/Pakistan; China/Taiwan; not to forget Israel/Iraq or Israel/Iran. Russia has already cited it in anticipation of a possible military push into Georgia, on grounds that this state has not done enough to block the operations of Chechen rebels. What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

    I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

  • Text of President Bush’s speech to the United Nations

    Source: The Associated Press

    PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the citizens of many countries. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

    We have accomplished much in the last year – in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do – in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror – and the people of the United States are grateful.

    The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war – the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that – unlike the League of Nations – our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

    Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged.

    Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lift up lives … to extend trade and the prosperity it brings … and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

    As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.

    Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

    Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    In one place – in one regime – we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms … exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

    Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped – by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

    To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

    He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge – by his deceptions, and by his cruelties – Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

    This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit “extremely grave violations” of human rights and that the regime’s repression is “all pervasive.” Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents – all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General’s high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for – more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

    In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

    In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

    From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

    United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

    And in 1995 – after four years of deception – Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

    Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program – weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

    Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

    In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

    In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, “condemning” Iraq’s “serious violations” of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, “deploring” Iraq’s “clear violations” of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing “flagrant violations” and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior “totally unacceptable.” And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

    As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq – four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

    We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

    Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of “oil for food” and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

    The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

    The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others – again as required by Security Council resolutions.

    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues – as required by the Security Council resolutions.

    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

    If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

    The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

    We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

    My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced – the just demands of peace and security will be met – or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

    Events can turn in one of two ways.

    If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

    If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

    Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.

    Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation “Gakudo” Award Lecture

    I am honored to receive an award that is made to individuals and organizations that carry on Ozaki Yukio’s undaunted battle to build a safe and peaceful world for all people. I want to thank the Board of Directors of the Ozaki Yukio Foundation and its President, Moriyama Mayumi, for this high honor. I particularly want to express appreciation to Mrs. Sohma Yukika and Mrs. Hara Fujiko, the daughter and granddaughter of Ozaki Yukio, who are both directors of the Foundation.

    Ozaki Yukio wrote, “I dreamed I would find a way for the peoples of the five continents to live in peace.” I can think of no goal more worthy or necessary. Ozaki Yukio was a great man, a man of the people, who fought for democracy and peace throughout his life. He also fought against war, militarism, military expenditures and unilateralism.

    One of the previous recipients of this award is Elisabeth Mann Borgese. Elisabeth and I worked together for two years in the early 1970s at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California. I was attracted to the Center by Elisabeth’s work of the law of the seas. She believed passionately that a new world order could be built from the necessity of creating a new set of laws for the world’s oceans. Elisabeth, now in her 80s, still exudes passion for this work and remains an inspiration to me.

    Our Common Heritage

    Elisabeth spoke often of the oceans as the Common Heritage of Mankind, a phrase coined by Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta. Over the years I have come to see that the concept of Common Heritage applies not only to the oceans, but to virtually everything on our planet, as well as to the planet itself, its biosphere, atmosphere and outer space. The land is our Common Heritage as are the skies, the climate, the trees and the crops we plant. Our Common Heritage also includes our cultures, our languages, our art forms, our religions, and our understandings of the mystery and miracle of life.

    It is part of the human condition that we do not stop often enough to recognize and appreciate the miracle of our lives. Each one of us is a miracle, unique and special. Every simple thing that we are capable of doing — everything that we take for granted such as walking, talking, thinking and creating – is a miracle. And, of course, we ourselves are miracles. We don’t know where we come from before birth or where we go after death. We don’t know why our hearts or brains work or why we are capable of breathing and doing so much more without conscious effort. Each of us is a miracle shrouded in mysteries we cannot understand.

    We now share this incredibly beautiful planet with some six billion other miracles. I have often wondered how it is that miracles are capable of killing other miracles. Perhaps it is because we do not value ourselves highly enough that we are less appreciative of others. Perhaps there is some appreciation for the miracles of who we are and for life that is missing in our cultures and our educational systems.

    The Glorification of War

    Most of us on this planet live in cultures in which war is glorified and celebrated. Our history books are filled with stories and pictures of those who led us into battle. Our popular culture celebrates war and warriors. One has only to look at a culture’s movies, television programming and the video games that children play to understand from where the next generation of warriors will arise.

    The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history. Some 200 million people died in international and civil wars. One of the most striking things about the 20th century is that the number of civilians killed in warfare rose dramatically throughout the century. In World War I, soldiers fought each other in trenches. In World War II, civilian casualties rose as aerial attacks were directed against cities. By the end of that war, US bombers were destroying Japanese cities at will. It was not a large step from the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945, in which some 100,000 civilians were killed, to dropping atomic weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of that year.

    By the end of the 20th century over 90 percent of the casualties of warfare were civilians, and throughout the latter half of the 20th century the threat of nuclear annihilation hung over all humanity. The United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in a mad arms race in which they each developed the capacity to destroy humanity many times over. Somehow the world survived the insanity of the nuclear arms race, but we are not yet safe. There are still far too many nuclear weapons in the world, over 30,000, and even today a surprisingly large number of them, some 4,500, remain on hair-trigger alert.

    The Influence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums

    My goal is to help create a world free of nuclear weapons. I was deeply affected in this regard by a relatively early visit to Japan. I came to Japan in 1963, when I was 21 years old. During my stay in Japan, I visited the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. I learned something at these museums that I had neither seen nor heard before. It was the extent of the suffering of the people who were beneath those bombs.

    In school in the United States, we had learned a relatively simple lesson about the use of these bombs: Atomic bombs win wars. In the case of World War II, the US dropped the atomic bombs and won the war. There was little discussion of the large numbers of deaths of men, women and children, or of the terrible suffering caused by the bombs. In these museums, however, the people beneath the bombs were brought back into the picture.

    Surely, nuclear weapons are the least heroic weapons imaginable. Their power is such that they kill indiscriminately. Dropped on a city, nuclear weapons kill everything immediately within a broad radius, and spread their radioactive poisons that go on killing over a much broader area. My visit to those museums at a young age had a profound effect on me. It gave direction to my life. I did not know then exactly what I would do, but I did know that nuclear weapons were not really weapons at all. They were instruments of genocide, capable of destroying cities, civilization and even humanity itself.

    Nuclear weapons are also profoundly undemocratic. They concentrate power and take it away from the people. Nuclear weapons were born in secrecy and have always been shrouded in secrecy. The decisions to develop, deploy and use these weapons have always been in the hands of only a small number of individuals. Even today, a single leader, or at most a small group of individuals, could envelop the world in nuclear conflagration.

    The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had it right: Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. If the cry of the atomic bomb survivors, “Never Again!” was to be realized, then nuclear weapons would have to be eliminated. The goal seemed tremendously distant in the face of the implacable hostility being expressed during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet it seemed necessary. The intention of confronting nuclear weapons and seeking their elimination was set in my mind in 1963, nearly four decades ago.

    After leaving Japan, I joined the army reserves in lieu of being drafted into the army. A second major force that shaped my life in the direction of working for peace was being called to active duty in the army in 1968. The Vietnam War was at its height, and I soon found myself as a young 2nd lieutenant with orders to go to Vietnam. I was totally opposed to the war in Vietnam, thinking it was illegal, immoral and highly inappropriate for the US to be killing Vietnamese peasants on the other side of the world. I decided to fight against going to Vietnam and took the matter to court. Eventually I won, and was released from the army.

    My first job was teaching international relations at San Francisco State University. I felt that change was too slow as a teacher, and that is what led me to work with Elisabeth Borgese at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. After that I worked for the Reshaping the International Order (RIO) Foundation in the Netherlands, coordinating a project on the relationship of dual-purpose technologies to disarmament and development. Then, in 1982, I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    It has been nearly twenty years since our Foundation was born. At that time, the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union were not talking to each other. The world situation looked grim. A small group of us in Santa Barbara believed that more needed to be done, and that citizen action was critical. We met weekly for a year, trying to develop a plan. From these meetings, we created the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The implication of the name was that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. I became the president of this new Foundation. We had no resources, but large dreams. Even in those difficult days, I was filled with hope. Each day brought new challenges. Our small Foundation began speaking out and advocating for a world free of nuclear threat. In those early days, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, we were viewed with some suspicion for our advocacy of nuclear disarmament.

    The tagline of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is Waging Peace. It is a concept that we believe is essential to ending the cycle of violence and building a culture of peace. Waging Peace implies an active commitment to changing the world. It means seeking non-violent means to resolve conflicts, and also working actively to prevent wars by creating the conditions of peace. This means active engagement in ending poverty and starvation. It means fighting against human rights abuses wherever they occur. It means fighting against corporate greed when there is human need. It means working for sustainable conditions of development and an environment that will sustain life on our planet.

    There are four main areas in which we have worked. The first is for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons is essential to ensure a human future. We were a founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network, a network that has grown to over 2,000 organizations and municipalities throughout the world. We were also a founding member of the Middle Powers Initiative, a small group of non-governmental organizations that has encouraged and supported middle power governments to play a leading role in nuclear disarmament efforts. The Foundation organized an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity, which has been signed by many world leaders, including 37 Nobel Laureates. I will discuss this Appeal in more detail in a moment.

    The second area of our concern is international law and institutions. We believe that international law must be strengthened and that the United Nations and its specialized agencies must be empowered to do their jobs effectively. We have fought hard for the creation of an International Criminal Court, a court that can hold individuals accountable for the most serious international crimes. An International Criminal Court would bring Nuremberg into the twenty-first century. It would set a standard in the world that no one stands above international law, and that crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide will not go unpunished. To this list of crimes, the crime of international terrorism should now be added.

    Without universal respect for and enforcement of international law, it will not be possible to effectively stop human rights abuses, destruction of the environment, and weaponization of the planet and outer space. Nor will it be possible to provide protection to the oceans, atmosphere, outer space and other areas of Common Heritage of Mankind.

    A third area of our concern is the use of science and technology for constructive rather than destructive purposes. In this area we helped to found and have provided support for the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES). This network, based in Dortmund, Germany, has affiliates in all parts of the world, and major projects in ethics, disarmament, and nuclear non-proliferation. INES has also established a whistleblower fund to support scientists and engineers who act courageously in opposing unethical uses of science and technology. We also have a Renewable Energy Project that promotes the use of sustainable forms of energy.

    The final major area of our concern is reaching out to youth. The Foundation has a Youth Outreach Coordinator on our staff who is responsible for conducting Peace Leadership Trainings for Youth and building chapters on high school and college campuses. We also have a Peace Education Coordinator on our staff who teaches non-violence in the schools and who is developing non-violence curriculum that can be used by teachers throughout the world.

    We provide internships for young people, and we give annual prizes to youth in our Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest and our Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Through our two web sites, www.wagingpeace.org and www.nuclearfiles.org, we reach additional hundreds of thousands of young people each year, many of whom sign up as members of the Foundation and receive our monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Let me now focus on nuclear issues. In 1995, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty held a review and extension conference. At issue was whether the treaty, which entered into force in 1970, would be extended indefinitely or for periods of time. This is the treaty that requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. We went to that treaty conference, along with other non-governmental organizations, lobbying against indefinite extension of the treaty. We wanted extensions of the treaty to be based upon achieving clearly defined nuclear disarmament goals.

    The United States was there lobbying hard for an indefinite extension of the treaty. In the end, the US prevailed and the treaty was extended indefinitely. The continuation of the treaty would not be dependent upon the nuclear weapons states achieving disarmament goals. However, the parties to the treaty agreed by consensus to complete negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to commence negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and to the “determined pursuit by the nuclear weapons states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….”

    Out of frustration with the slow progress on nuclear disarmament at the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a number of disarmament non-governmental organizations decided to join together in establishing a new global network, Abolition 2000, to achieve the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. By the year 2000, the network had grown to over 2000 organizations and municipalities.

    When the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, now numbering 187 countries, met for their next review conference in the year 2000 there was little good news to report. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had been created and signed by many countries, but the treaty had not yet entered into force and in 1999 the US Senate failed to ratify the treaty. There had been virtually no progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. If anything, the nuclear weapons states could be said to be making “systematic and progressive efforts” to thwart nuclear disarmament.

    At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, many parties to the treaty noted the lack of substantial progress on nuclear disarmament, and called for action. The parties agreed to 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament. Among these were entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the continuation of an interim moratorium on nuclear testing; full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….”

    An Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    On the opening day of the 2000 review conference, our Foundation ran an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity in the New York Times. The Appeal, signed by many of the great peace leaders of our time, says in part, “Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm…. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.”

    The Appeal calls upon the leaders of all nations and, in particular the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, to take five actions for the benefit of all humanity. These actions are:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    The Crawford Summit

    In November 2000, Presidents Bush and Putin met at the Crawford, Texas Summit. President Bush announced that he was prepared to unilaterally reduce the size of the US nuclear arsenal to 2,200 to 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads over a ten-year period. President Putin agreed to match these levels, although he had stated previously on several occasions that he was prepared to go to lower levels than this. While perhaps we should be grateful that the reductions are occurring, these numbers are still high enough to destroy the world many times over, and demonstrate that the US and Russia are still stuck in the Cold War mentality of deterrence – even when it is not clear there is anyone to deter.

    The Crawford Summit failed to deal with any of the critical issues raised in the Appeal. Both the US and Russia continue to maintain some 2,250 nuclear weapons each on hair-trigger alert. More than ten years after the end of the Cold War, this is unnecessarily dangerous and increases the possibility of an accidental nuclear war.

    Rather than reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush has been trying to convince President Putin to amend the treaty and has indicated his willingness to abrogate the treaty if President Putin will not agree to amend it. We have prepared a book at the Foundation on the US plans to deploy a National Missile Defense. The book is entitled, A Maginot Line in the Sky: International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Defense. It provides many arguments why a ballistic missile defenses are destabilizing and decrease global security. In Northeast Asia, theater missile defenses will lead to China’s strengthening its offensive capabilities, which in turn will lead India and Pakistan to strengthen their nuclear arsenals.

    We believe there are three principle reasons why President Bush is pushing so hard to deploy missile defenses: first, he seeks more protection and degrees of freedom for US forward based troops and military installations; second, he seeks to proceed with development and testing to weaponize outer space; and third, the program will transfer tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, of dollars, from US taxpayers to defense contractors. The Bush administration is so eager to move forward with missile defenses that it has actually encouraged China to build up its nuclear arsenal so that it will not feel threatened by US missile defenses.

    In 1999 the US Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and President Bush has not shown any intent to re-submit the treaty to the Senate. On the contrary, he has examined possibilities of resuming nuclear testing. At the present, all states are observing a moratorium on nuclear testing. A breakout from this moratorium by one state could lead other states to also resume testing and signal increased reliance on nuclear arsenals.

    Good faith negotiations to achieve the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons are the promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force more than 30 years ago. The failure to engage in these negotiations is a breach of the solemn obligations of that treaty. The unilateral steps announced by President Bush at the Crawford Summit are not a substitute for these negotiations. What is done unilaterally can be reversed unilaterally, and irreversible steps are called for by the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at their 2000 Review Conference.

    Policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and No Use against non-nuclear weapons states would signal less reliance on nuclear weapons and would provide needed assurances to non-nuclear weapons states. So long as the nuclear weapons states fail to provide these assurances, the uncertainty will be an impetus to nuclear proliferation.

    The US alone is continuing to spend some $35 billion per year on maintaining its nuclear arsenal. That amounts to some $100 million per day. At the same time, some 30,000 children under the age of five are dying daily of starvation and preventable diseases. Relatively small amounts of food and inexpensive inoculations could save these children. The world, led by the United States, continues to squander resources on nuclear arsenals that have virtually no military utility while children go hungry and without adequate nutrition, health care and education.

    The $35 billion that the US spends per year on nuclear weapons is just one-tenth of its military budget of some $350 billion per year. The world as a whole is spending some $750 billion on military forces. These are obscene amounts in the face of the suffering in the world. Just a small percentage of world military expenditures could provide clean water, adequate food and shelter and primary education for all the people on our planet. The potential is there to turn our planet into a paradise for all of its inhabitants, but to do so we must break out of the war culture that militarizes and poisons the planet.

    Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

    The terrorist attacks on US soil on September 11th taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. The only way out is by waging peace so effectively, with such depth of compassion, that enemies are turned to friends or at least made neutral. This will not be easy, but it is our best hope for security in the future.

    Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons. Should this occur, it will not only be buildings that may be destroyed but cities. Unless the nuclear weapons states become serious about reducing the size of their nuclear arsenals to a firmly controllable number of nuclear weapons, it is a near certainty that these weapons will at some point land in the hands of terrorists.

    Policy Proposals for Japan

    I would like to suggest some policy considerations for Japan. I offer these as a friend of the Japanese people.

    Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons free world. Right now it is not. I think the government of Japan has broken faith with the will of its people on the issue of nuclear disarmament. The people of Japan want nuclear disarmament, and deserve better from their government on this issue. Having experienced nuclear devastation at first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the US, to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the US if it believes US policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the US, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” On nuclear policy issues, the US has been driving drunk and putting the world at risk. It’s past time for Japan to express its concern to the US in polite but strong terms.

    Be a friend also to China. This means that Japan must also be willing to criticize China, but also to apologize to China for the wrongs committed there by Japan in the past. I just came from China and had the strong sense from the young people I spoke with there that an apology from Japan is long overdue and would improve relations between the two countries.

    Oppose ballistic missile defenses in Northeast Asia, and work instead for a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone. This would be important for security in the region and as a model for the world. A leader in this work in Japan is Hiromichi Umebayashi, the president of Peace Depot.

    Follow the Kobe Formula throughout Japan. If the captain of an American ship in Japanese waters is asked whether his ship is carrying nuclear weapons, the standard response based on US policy is to “neither confirm nor deny.” This should not be good enough response for Japan. At Kobe, port entry is denied without a clear response that the ship is not carrying nuclear weapons. This policy could be used throughout Japan.

    Support the five steps set forth in the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. These are: de-alert all nuclear weapons; re-affirm commitments to maintaining Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; commence good faith negotiations for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons; declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons; and reallocate resources from maintaining nuclear arsenals to meeting human needs.

    Maintain Article IX of your Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

    Sadako Peace Garden

    I told you that an early influence on my life was visiting the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. Thirty-seven years after my first visit to those museums, I was able to arrange with the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for an exhibit from those museums to come to Santa Barbara. Thousands of people were able to gain new insights into the dangers of nuclear weapons by visiting that exhibit. After the exhibit returned to Japan, we were able to create a virtual exhibit that can be viewed from our web sites.

    One of the most moving stories related to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the story of Sadako Sasaki. Sadako was a little girl, only two years old, when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. For ten years she led a normal life, and then came down with leukemia, a likely result of radiation exposure. While in the hospital, Sadako folded her medicine wrappers into paper cranes in the hopes of regaining her health and achieving peace in the world. On the wings of one of the small cranes she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”

    Japanese legend has it that if one folds 1,000 cranes their wish will come true. Sadako died before her 1,000 cranes were finished, but her classmates folded the rest and they spread the story of Sadako. Today her peace cranes have truly flown all over the world. There is a statue of Sadako in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and its base is always covered by mounds of cranes brought and sent by children from throughout Japan and other parts of the world. Sadako’s message of peace has even reached Santa Barbara.

    In 1995, our Foundation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by creating a peace garden at a beautiful retreat center in Santa Barbara. We called it Sadako Peace Garden. It is a very natural garden. There are cranes carved into the large boulders in the garden. There is also a very large, beautiful eucalyptus tree at one end of the garden. The tree is over one hundred years old. It has a very broad trunk and it reaches far into the sky. At the retreat center they call it the Tree of Faith.

    Each year on August 6th we hold a commemoration at Sadako Peace Garden. The ceremony is composed of music, poetry and reflections. It is always very solemn and beautiful. During the year, many people visit Sadako Peace Garden for their own quiet reflection. I like to take visitors there. I recently took one of the young honorees of our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, Hafsat Abiola from Nigeria, and her sister Khafila to visit the garden. There were paper cranes hanging from the trees as well as some messages. We noticed that one of the messages said, “There are many things here I do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.” What a beautiful concept. We must never give up, because there are things we do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.

    At the garden I picked up some small seeds from the ground. It was from a seed like those that the Tree of Faith grew. Each of those seeds contained everything necessary to create a strong, healthy, beautiful tree. It is the same with each of us. We each contain all we need to become strong, healthy and beautiful individuals, although we will certainly be benefited by some support and nurturing. I am speaking, of course, of what we become inwardly as well as outwardly.

    The Importance of Hope

    I want to suggest to you that hope should be a foundation for our actions. Without hope, it is easy to become mired in despair or cynicism. Without hope, vision is limited; and without vision, as the Prophet Isaiah warned long ago, the people perish.

    Hope may be found in the active pursuit of a more peaceful and just world. Hope may be found in educating a new generation in the ways of peace and non-violence. Hope may be found in a compassionate response to suffering, wherever it occurs. Hope will be forged by our actions to end hunger, poverty, and the abuse of human rights. Hope resides in our efforts to stop the pollution of our planetary home and to protect its resources for future generations. And hope will be found in working to abolish nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and in working to abolish war as a human institution.

    We do not know what the future holds. What we do know is that if we are apathetic and uninvolved we will not be a part of shaping a better future. It gives me hope that increasing numbers of people, many of them young people, are becoming involved in actively working to shape a more decent future.

    In many ways, we are living in a dark and dangerous time. But with hope and perseverance we can make a difference. I recently learned something important: Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light. Where there is light, there is no darkness. The same must be true of despair: Where there is hope, there cannot be despair. So I urge you to bring light into dark times, and bring hope to those who despair. By planting and nurturing seeds of peace each day and by living with compassion, commitment and courage, you can help create a world at peace free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. It’s going to take all of us together to change the course of our world, and our joy will be in the effort to accomplish this great goal.

    I pledge to you that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will not cease in its efforts to lead the way toward a peaceful, non-violent and nuclear weapons-free world that we can be proud to pass on to the next generation – and I am convinced that our work has never been more necessary or important.

    The Power of One

    Encouraged by exemplary lives such as that of Ozaki Yukio, we will work to find, train and inspire the Ozaki Yukio’s of tomorrow. I’m glad that you are keeping his vision alive, and I hope that our work is also contributing to realizing the vision of this great man of the people.

    I would like to conclude with a short quote by Ozaki Yukio. It comes from an extraordinary article he wrote, entitled, “In Lieu of My Tombstone.” He said this:

    “If the world’s wealth and people are allowed to move freely, economic recovery will be spurred and the gap between the rich and the poor will be bridged. To secure this, the abolition of arms will annihilate the difference between the strong and the weak countries and bring about global equality, which means security and happiness for all mankind.

    “Collaboration or isolation? Open doors or closed? Which will it be? You who read this, wherever you are in the world, I beg you to ponder these lines and choose wisely.”

    We would all do well to not only ponder these lines, but also to ponder the life of Ozaki Yukio. His life demonstrated the Power of One. He lived with compassion, commitment and courage. He made a difference in his country and in the world. In this sense, his life is a beacon.

    I encourage each of you to choose hope and to be persistent in seeking your goals. You will help to fulfill Ozaki Yukio’s noble vision if each day you do something to contribute to a world of peace and justice, free from the threat of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Responsibility for the future, as Ozaki Yukio understood so well, rests with each of us.

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

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end most life on Earth.

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    More than ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking the following steps:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

  • Transcript: President Bush Speech on Missile Defense

    Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you being here.

    I also want to thank Secretary Powell for being here as well.

    My national security advisor, Condi Rice, is here, as well as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers. Appreciate Admiral Clark and General Ryan for being here as well. But most of all, I want to thank you, Admiral Gaffney, and the students for NDU for having me here today.

    For almost 100 years, this campus has served as one of our country’s premier centers for learning and thinking about America’s national security. Some of America’s finest soldiers have studied here: Dwight Eisenhower and Colin Powell. Some of America’s finest statesmen have taught here: George Kennan (ph).

    Today, you’re carrying on this proud tradition forward, continuing to train tomorrow’s generals, admirals and other national security thinkers, and continuing to provide the intellectual capital for our nation’s strategic vision.

    This afternoon, I want us to think back some 30 years to a far different time in a far different world. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a hostile rivalry. The Soviet Union was our unquestioned enemy, a highly armed threat to freedom and democracy. Far more than that wall in Berlin divided us.

    Our highest ideal was and remains individual liberty. Their’s was the construction of a vast communist empire. Their totalitarian regime held much of Europe captive behind an Iron Curtain. We didn’t trust them, and for good reason. Our deep differences were expressed in a dangerous military confrontation that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert.

    The security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise that neither side would fire nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations.

    We even went so far as to codify this relationship in a 1972 ABM Treaty, based on the doctrine that our very survival would best be ensured by leaving both sides completely open and vulnerable to nuclear attack. The threat was real and vivid. The Strategic Air Command had an airborne command post called the Looking Glass, aloft 24 hours a day, ready in case the president ordered our strategic forces to move toward their targets and release their nuclear ordnance.

    The Soviet Union had almost 1.5 million troops deep in the heart of Europe, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany.

    We used our nuclear weapons, not just to prevent the Soviet Union from using their nuclear weapons, but also to contain their conventional military forces, to prevent them from extending the Iron Curtain into parts of Europe and Asia that were still free.

    In that world, few other nations had nuclear weapons, and most of those who did were responsible allies, such as Britain and France. We worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, but it was mostly a distant threat, not yet a reality.

    Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The Wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union. Today’s Russia is not yesterday’s Soviet Union.

    Its government is no longer communist. Its president is elected. Today’s Russia is not our enemy, but a country in transition with an opportunity to emerge as a great nation, democratic, at peace with itself and its neighbors.

    The Iron Curtain no longer exists. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic are free nations and they are now our allies in NATO, together with a reunited Germany. Yet, this is still a dangerous world; a less certain, a less predictable one.

    More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some already have developed a ballistic missile technology that would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances and incredible speeds, and a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world.

    Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the world’s least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states — states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.

    They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined forces to turn him back. But the international community would have faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail with nuclear weapons.

    Like Saddam Hussein, some of today’s tyrants are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America.

    They hate our friends. They hate our values. They hate democracy and freedom, and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer enough to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends.

    We must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us. This is an important opportunity for the world to rethink the unthinkable and to find new ways to keep the peace. Today’s world requires a new policy, a broad strategy of active nonproliferation, counter-proliferation and defenses.

    We must work together with other like-minded nations to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to acquire them.

    We must work with allies and friends who wish to join with us to defend against the harm they can inflict. And together, we must deter anyone who would contemplate their use.

    We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation. Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation.

    We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present or point us to the future. It enshrines the past.

    No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.

    This new framework must encourage still further cuts in nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons still have a vital role to play in our security and that of our allies.

    We can and will change the size, the composition, the character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over. I’m committed to achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs, including our obligations to our allies.

    My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces. The United States will lead by example to achieve our interests and the interests for peace in the world.

    Several months ago, I asked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to examine all available technologies and basing modes for effective missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, our friends and our allies. The secretary has explored a number of complementary and innovative approaches.

    The secretary has identified near-term options that could allow us to deploy an initial capability against limited threats. In some cases, we can draw on already established technologies that might involve land-based and sea-based capabilities to intercept missiles in mid-course or after they re-enter the atmosphere.

    We also recognize the substantial advantages of intercepting missiles early in their flight, especially in the boost phase. The preliminary work has produced some promising options for advanced sensors and interceptors that may provide this capability. If based at sea or on aircraft, such approaches could provide limited but effective defenses.

    We have more work to do to determine the final form the defenses might take. We will explore all of these options further. We recognize the technological difficulties we face, and we look forward to I’ve made it clear from the very beginning that I would consult closely on the important subject with our friends and allies, who are also threatened by missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

    This treaty ignores the fundamental breakthroughs in technology during the last 30 years. It prohibits us from exploring all options for defending against the threats that face us, our allies and other countries.

    That’s why we should work together to replace this treaty with a new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past, and especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War.

    This new cooperative relationship should look to the future, not to the past. It should be reassuring, rather than threatening. It should be premised on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation, including the area of missile defense.

    It should allow us to share information so that each nation can improve its early warning capability and its capability to defend its people and territory. And perhaps one day, we can even cooperate in a joint defense.

    I want to complete the work of changing our relationship from one based on a nuclear balance of terror to one based on common responsibilities and common interests. We may have areas of difference with Russia, but we are not and must not be strategic adversaries.

    Russia and America both face new threats to security. Together, we can address today’s threats and pursue today’s opportunities. We can explore technologies that have the potential to make us all safer.

    This is a time for vision, a time for a new way of thinking, a time for bold leadership. The Looking Glass no longer stands its 24- hour-a-day vigil. We must all look at the world in a new, realistic way to preserve peace for generations to come.

    God bless. (APPLAUSE)