Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: UN

  • Some Points on Terrorism

    Here are some points in connection with U.S. reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks:

    Atrocious crimes have been committed. It is right to make every effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    This effort should be aimed at justice, not undiscriminating revenge.

    Holding the perpetrators accountable and bringing them to public trial before a suitable tribunal will disseminate the lessons to be drawn from these atrocities and act as a deterrent for the future.

    If it is demonstrated that governments as well as terrorist groups are implicated, then responsible persons in those governments should be named and their delivery to a tribunal demanded, as the U.S. has done with Osama bin Laden and his collaborators.

    All anti-terrorist actions of the United States should clearly show that the U.S. is holding specific individuals accountable for specific reasons and should avoid blanket accusations and indiscriminate death and injury. U.S. actions should not create future terrorists.

    The use of military force should only be a last resort, should be limited to the purpose of bringing presumed perpetrators to justice, and should be visibly related to that purpose.

    The UN Security Council resolution of September 12, 2001 proposed by the United States and passed with its vote makes explicit this point of bringing individuals to justice. Paragraph 3 of the resolution states: “[The UN Security Council] Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.”

    We must study the sources and causes of terrorist motivation. Information thus far available shows that most of the nineteen perpetrators of the September 11 hijackings were educated men from fairly solid middle class families, not unemployed residents of refugee camps. In conducting this study, we must be as balanced as possible, including in the study U.S. actions and policies that might have contributed, but also considering all other pertinent sources of motivation.

    Because it is already widely known that one important source of Muslim resentment against the USA is U.S. support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, we should urge the administration to develop an equitable and practical plan for resolving this confrontation, perhaps based on the last stage of the Barak-Arafat negotiations before their collapse, and to press this plan systematically on both Israelis and Palestinians. The time has come for both, in the interest of world security and their own security, to agree to a plan for reconciling their differences.

    We also need an administration action plan to alleviate the plight of the Iraqi civilian population under UN sanctions.

    We should continue to remind the Administration and the U.S. public of the relevance of the UN role in combating terrorism.

    This is a time of high emotions with much pressure for unity and uniformity. It entails a risk here that the American public and the Congress may be stampeded into unwise actions. We should insist that all decisions on terrorism be approached with reflection and best judgment. All U.S. citizens should insist on retaining the right to draw their own conclusions and to use their own judgment.

    This point is especially applicable to proposals to limit political freedoms inside the U.S. and for military action abroad.

  • Letter to Kofi Annan

    September 21, 2001

    Dear Mr. Secretary General,

    It is of historic, world importance, and it would make you one of the most important leaders of the 21st century, if you would recommend today the creation of a United Nations Anti-Terrorist Agency.

    The United Nations Anti-Terrorist Agency could be equipped with a World Police Center which would serve as a clearing house for any information on potential terrorism from any nation or source around the world.

    The United Nations Anti-Terrorist Agency would be accompanied by a World Anti-Terrorist Tribunal to judge cases of terrorism and apply sanctions and punishment.

    With my warmest wishes and prayers for permanent peace,

     

    Robert Muller Former UN Assistant Secretary General Co-Founder of the UN University for Peace in Costa Rica

  • Declaration of NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative

    Statement Against violence – for prudence

    Speechless and horror-stricken, with our deepest regret and compassion for all victims and their relatives, we have to take note of this most unbelievable act of terrorism in history. We would like to express our sympathy to all citizens of the United States of America.

    As part of the peace-movement, the Initiative of Engineers and Scientists rejects all forms of terrorism and violence. We are shaken by this insane act of unrestricted violence that will solve none of our problems, but drive us further into desperation and a circle of violence.

    This crime was not necessary to prove the vulnerability of highly technologized industrial nations – they are not to be technologically secured against their own high end technology.

    There is no way to escape from this helplessness, merely political and humanitarian steps to minimize it. Acts of revenge and military retaliation will not solve the problem. We appeal for prudence, particularly for those who are in political charge.

    We would like to propose to the United Nations: The United Nations shall invite all head of states and governments of the world, all parliaments and NGO´s – immediately – to gather for a world – peace – conference, in order to work on courageous steps (in the spirit of the frequently cited New Thinking) to solve wars and conflicts, and to work against such senseless outbreak of violence.

    Dortmund, Sept. 11th 2001, 6:30 p.m. +49 (0) 231 – 57 52 02 Reiner Braun, Executive Director

  • The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trad in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

    United Nations Headquarters, New York

     

    The indiscriminate proliferation and sale of millions of illegal small arms and light weapons, including handguns, machine guns, rifles, hand grenades and other light weapons have caused havoc, misery and death annually to over half a million people in developing and industrial countries. An estimated 500 million such weapons are manufactured in many countries and eventually sold to drug dealers, terrorists and other violent groups causing economic and social collapse in many regions, especially Africa, Asia and Latin America, closing schools, businesses and destroying infrastructure. There are an estimated 350 million small arms in the U. S. alone. Governments, businesses, civil society and NGOs are attempting partnerships to address and combat this illicit criminal trade.

     

    The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects was convened at United Nations Headquarters, New York, July 9 -20, 2001. Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary General, opening the conference, noted that the enormous proliferation of small arms is creating a culture of violence and crime in mny countries and regions. Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, President of the Conference, said the international community is addressing one of the most urgent problems of world peace and security at this time.

     

    During the Plenary the majority of governments and groups of governments, such as the European Union, EU, the Organization of American States OAS, the African Union, AU, the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, the Southern African Development Community, the East African Community, as well as many individual nations support the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime draft Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms.

     

    There is also general support for the 1996 UN Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers. Among the regional initiatives were the InterAmerican Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Related Matter. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, document on Small Arms was approved in November 2000. The AU urged support for the Bamako Declaration that could create effective control of small arms in Africa. MERCOSUR, the Southern Common Market of Latin America, is also making an effort to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The U.S. supported the Program of Action with the exception of the prevention of civilian possession of small arms for self defense and sport.

     

    The conference agenda addressed the issues of marking, tracing, regulation of arms brokers and shipping agents, controls on the manufacture and regulations for exports and imports, restraint and responsibility of governments, legal transfers, security of stockpiles, disposal and destruction of weapons, and transparency of military data. Many current initiatives are underway by individual states (Sierra Leone, Ghana, Thailand, Indonesia, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, and others) that are supporting disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of combatants into the economy.

     

    The Program of Action, adopted without a vote, includes national, regional and global initiatives. National legislation, regulations and administrative procedures, for the production, export, import, transit or retransfer of small arms, should be accompanied by national coordination agencies to create policy for monitoring, tracing, trafficking, brokering, trade, collection and destruction of weapons, public educaton, as well as effective DDR programs. Regional, and subregional, initiatives should include negotiations for prevention and control of the illicit trade, as well as trans-border customs and cooperation between states. Global measures would encourage the World Customs Organization to aid in cooperation for the regional use of the Interpol, the International Police Organization. Implementation for international cooperation and assistance should be supplemented at all levels with intergovermental organizations, financial institutions, civil society and NGOs, as well as legally binding instruments for tracing and exchange of information. A follow up conference in 2006 will review implemention.

     

    The voice of the people was heard in the briefings offered by the International Action Network on Small Arms, IANSA, which is a global network of non-governmental organizations, NGOs, that has a large constituency of 200 NGOs and other organizations worldwide. IANSA has organized many groups for the Small Arms Conference. Monday July 16 statements by NGOs, and other organizations, were presented to the delegations in Conference Room 4 with over 40 groups participating. Many urged the governments to address humanitarian and health concerns, human rights violations, especially for women, children, the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable. Others urged reduction of military budgets to enhance social issues, the economies and the environment. Thirteen Firearms Community Groups supported the right to small arms and light weapons for civilians. Three groups supported controls of small arms, while others spoke about implementation and follow up to the conference. Mary Leigh Blek of the Million Mom March, USA, got rousing cheers from the NGOs in the balcony, as did Dr. Vyacheslav Sharov, Russian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, IPPNW Russia. Dr. Natalie Goldring, National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives and Professor at the University of Maryland, urged the adoption of strong and extensive transparency measures accompanied by a global transparency regime for exchange of information on marking, tracing, brokering and relevant issues. Loretta Bondi, Advocacy Director, The Fund for Peace, spoke of a Model Convention on Arms Brokering that would result in an effective implementation of the Program of Action.

     

    The UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms, CASA, was established in 1998 for informaton exchange with various UN departments and agencies. The UN Development Program, UNDP, cooperates with the Department of Disarmament Affairs, DDA, UNICEF, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, the Department of PeaceKeeping Operations, DPKO, the International Labor Organization, ILO, and many countries to combat small arms and light weapons in the field. Working with governments, NGOs, national and local communities and PeaceKeepers, the UNDP “Weapons for Development” programs have collected tens of thousands of illicit military style weapons, while promoting development activites and coordinating disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of combatants, DDR. These ‘Weapons for Development” programs have had a major impact on reducing tensions to promote economic development and local businesses in various countries. Albania, Congo-Brazzaville, the Solomon Islands, Niger and Mali are some examples.

     

    During an Eminent Persons meeting with NGOs, consensus seemed to focus on national legislation and regional cooperation to address marking, tracing, brokering and especially the follow up mechanisms with a conference in 2006 for review and oversight. A code of conduct between businesses and governments for rules and standards, crime prevention and follow up, has been organized by an international manufacturing group. Industry has the technical expertise to help create a system of partnership with states and NGOs that should be successful. A UN Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons was suggested that could be a result from the review conference in 2006. A convention could coordinate all the issues for action orientated implementation, follow up and verification, with cost effective regional cooperative monitoring for governments, the private sector, financial institutions and civil society.

     

    * Nancy E. W. Colton, United Nations Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Board of Directors, NGO Committee on Disarmament, Inc.

  • Concerned Student Writes to President Bush

    Dear President Bush,

    My Name is Nelly Martinez. I am a student at Mount San Antonio College. Right now I am researching nuclear arms. Recently, a disturbing article came out about this particular subject in the Los Angeles Times. After researching and learning about the power of our nuclear arsenal, I was shocked and amazed at why we need such disastrous weapons. Maybe someone can help explain my misconceptions.

    In my mind, I believe the issue of having the most weapons is an issue of who has the bigger toy, or the bigger muscles. What about the opinions of the ordinary American citizens who do not have knowledge about nuclear issues? What about those who decide to just ignore the subject and place this issue in the back of their heads? It was a relief to hear that there is a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons. If one Trident submarine has enough firepower to wipe out the Northern Hemisphere and cause devastating effects, why do we need any more of such submarines? How can anyone want to destroy the life of other innocent human beings?

    There is no doubt that my life, the life of my family (whom I love and cherish with all my heart) and the life of future generations will be affected by a nuclear war. The fact is no one would survive a nuclear war. Isn’t that enough to get through the minds of the people in charge of these weapons? In my opinion, whoever decides to make more nuclear weapons is worse than Hitler. Such actions could result in a World Holocaust and it is doubtful that mankind could survive a nuclear winter.

    Please do not forget about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But also, do not forget about the past in general so that we can learn from our mistakes. I know that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing in comparison to the capability we have now. I also know that if another country should strike the US with a nuclear weapon, we would without a doubt retaliate. This process of striking and reciprocating a nuclear attack could continue until mankind itself would be wiped out. I do support the Constitution’s “Right to Bear Arms,” but how far must we go?

    Here is a hypothetical example: We the Americans are up against the “enemy” standing in a pool of gas, representing our world, one side has 16,000 matches ready to ignite the other side has 30,000 matches. Who will win? One match alone (The firepower in one Trident sub) will do the job.

    I am here to plea for some kind of answer to my questions because I love my life, my country, my people and other people as well. I truly want my children’s children to live after I am gone from this earth. My dream is to live until I am old and not be vaporized by a nuclear bomb. Please Mr. President, help us keep peace with other countries and obey the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once we violate this Treaty the United States has made with Russia, both countries will start making more unnecessary nuclear weapons.

    Sincerely,

    Nelly Martinez A Concerned Student and Citizen

  • A Nuremberg Prosecutor’s Response to Henry Kissinger

    Henry Kissinger’s essay on “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction” (Foreign Affairs July/August 2001) perceives danger in allowing international legal norms to interfere with political actions by national governments. The former U.S. Secretary of State in the administration of President Richard Nixon warns that current efforts to deter genocide and other crimes against humanity by creating an international criminal court (ICC) run the risk of becoming a “tyranny of judges” or a “dictatorship of the virtuous.” He refers to “inquisitions and even witch-hunts.” Kissinger’s focus on the past exaggerates the dangers of the present and ignores the needs of the future. If we are to have a more peaceful and humane world, international law must play a greater and not a lesser role.

    Dr. Kissinger challenges the basic concept of universal jurisdiction. He argues, incorrectly, that the notion is of recent vintage. He gives scant weight to ancient doctrines designed to curb piracy or to a plethora of international conventions following the first world war. He fails to recognize that international law is found not only in treaties but in general principles of justice and in customs which gradually obtain universal recognition. International law is not static but advances to meet the needs of a changing world.

    Over half a century ago, Robert M. Jackson, on leave from the U.S. Supreme Court to become Chief U.S. Prosecutor before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, declared: “To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.” The learned judges reviewed the law on which the trials were based and concluded that it was “not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of victorious nations” but “the expression of international law existing at the time of its creation…” The Nuremberg principles were affirmed by the United Nations in 1946 and became binding legal precedents for war crimes trials in Tokyo and elsewhere. Justice Jackson and Telford Taylor, his successor for a dozen subsequent trials at Nuremberg, repeatedly made plain that the law being mobilized to maintain peace in the future would apply to all nations equally.

    The United States inspired the world when it proclaimed at Nuremberg and elsewhere that aggression, genocide and other crimes against humanity were universally prohibited by international law. It was recognized that states can act only through individuals and thus those leaders responsible for the crimes could be held to account in a court of law. Crimes like aggression, genocide and similar large-scale atrocities are almost invariably committed by or with the connivance of a national government and it thus becomes imperative to have available an international tribunal that could bring them to justice. For over half a century, United Nations committees struggled in vain to reach consensus on a code of international crimes that would be punished in an international court. Cold war politics stymied all U.N. efforts to create an international criminal jurisdiction. Powerful nations remained unwilling to yield their sovereign rights to kill as they alone saw fit.

    After years of meticulous argumentation at the U.N., a breakthrough finally came in Rome in 1998 where 120 nations voted in favor of an ICC to curb the incessant murders and persecution of millions of innocent people. The U.S. was one of 7 nations that voted No. Mr. Kisssinger now argues that because of “the intimidating passion of its advocates”, the judicial procedures designed to punish and deter new crimes against humanity are being “spread with extraordinary speed and has not been subjected to systematic debate”. ” It is not the passion of its advocates that is moving nations toward the rule of law – it is the passion of those who have been victims of politics as usual.

    The tribunals set up by the Security Council of the United Nations in the 1990’s, with strong U.S. support, to punish massive war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are belittled by Dr. Kissinger’s argument that “It was never thought that they would subject past and future leaders of one nation to prosecution by the national magistrates of another state where the violations had not occurred”. None of these arguments are convincing. Kissinger scorns the judgment of Great Britain’s esteemed Law Lords who confirmed the legal validity of the detention in England of Chile’s former Head of State, Augusto Pinochet, who was accused of crimes committed against Spanish nationals in Chile. He ignores, for example, the widely-hailed prosecution of Adolf Eichman by Israel, for Holocaust crimes committed in Europe at a time when the state of Israel didn’t even exist. He fails to recognize that these advances in international jurisprudence also reflect the changing needs of contemporary world society.

    In 1776, the Declaration of Independence declared that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The United Nations Charter speaks in the name of “We the Peoples…” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 refers to ‘the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family.,.”and declares that it is essential “that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” These and many other international human rights instruments reflect the growing realization that true sovereignty lies in the people and not the state. Today, no nation and no person can be above the law. No one should oppose the creation of new institutions being created to help realize the dreams of suffering humanity.

    Professor Kissinger is quite right to insist on due process protection and fair trials for every accused but his assumption that these rights will be flouted by the ICC is completely unfounded. Quite the contrary, the best way to be sure that law will not be abused as a weapon to settle political disputes is to create a competent international court composed of highly qualified judges from many nations bound by rules that guarantee a fair trial under internationally approved standards and scrutiny. As of July 1, 2001, 36 states , including sme of our staunchest allies, have completed the ratification process thereby confirming their unconditional acceptance of the Court. U.S. insistence upon complete immunity for all U.S. nationals is viewed by many of our friends as a repudiation of vaunted U.S. ideals and an unacceptable affront to the rule of law that must apply equally to everyone.

    The ICC seeks to usher in a new regime of increased respect for international law. The court will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed before the court comes into existence. There is no retroactivity. Only crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and major war crimes, can be tried. The supreme international crime – aggressive war – can only be considered later – if there is a near- unanimous amendment Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that national courts are given priority and the ICC will have jurisdiction only where the national courts are unable or unwilling to provide the accused with a fair trial. The Security Council can block prosecutions indefinitely if needed for reconciliation or peace. Administrative and budgetary controls are clearly defined. Without its own police force, the court must depend upon the Security Council to enforce its decisions. Enforcement can be vetoed by any of the five privileged Permanent Members, including the U.S. Kissinger’s reference to the “unlimited discretion” of the prosecutor is unfounded. Many safeguards are written into the statute. A court that acts arbitrarily or seeks to abuse its limited powers will soon cease to exist.

    Kissinger argues that the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), created at U.S. behest in 1993, had the affrontry to receive a “complaint” alleging that punishable crimes against humanity had been committed during the NATO air campaign in Kosovo in 1999. He should have stressed that in this instance the ICTY Prosecutor properly dismissed the complaint and refused to issue an indictment. The statute that governs the ICTY was approved by the United States and the United Nations for the purpose of bringing to justice those leaders responsible for crimes against humanity committed since 1991 in that particular region. It made no exceptions for U.S. nationals or others. The burden is always on the prosecutor to prove beyond doubt that the law has been violated. It must be shown that the accused knew or should have known that the deeds were criminal and that the defendant had the obligation and ability to prevent the crimes from happening. Despite initial difficulties and occasional shortcomings the ICTY has earned respect for its very fair treatment of the accused and its development of international criminal law. It is a new-born babe that must be helped and encouraged and not disparaged.

    The innocent need not fear the rule of law. Kissinger’s misperceptions about current international law lead him to the erroneous conclusion that if the U.S. dos not ratify the ICC treaty Americans will be outside its reach and hence protected from malicious accusations. He fails to notice that without the protective shield of binding international law and institutions to enforce it, the military captive is completely at the mercy of his captors. In every democratic society it is unavoidable that some unjustified complaints may be lodged for political or other nefarious purposes. It is also inevitable that some judgments may go awry and some judges may be incompetent or worse. That is no reason to abolish courts or to refuse to accept new courts where needed. Outstanding American international legal experts, including ten former Presidents of the American Society of International Law and the American Bar Association have, after careful study, concluded that it would be in the best interests of the United States and its military personnel for the United States to accept the proposed ICC as quickly as possible. The same conclusion was reached in 2000 by outstanding professors of the Harvard law School after a careful study by leading military and legal experts assembled by the venerated American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    A politically conservative constituency in the United States argues for the protection of American sovereignty as though we were still in the Middle Ages. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina has been a leading opponent of the ICC. Even though the U.S. Constitution vests the President with the power to negotiate and sign treaties, the distinguished Senator did not wait for the President to submit the ICC treaty to the Senate for its needed advice and consent but intruded into Presidential prerogatives by proclaiming that it would be “dead on arrival.”. The wily Senator also introduced legislation deceptively named “The Servicemembers Protection Act” designed to abort the ICC by imposing economic and military sanctions against states that support the court. He managed to have its submission endorsed by Henry Kissinger and several other distinguished former public servants, whose signature seemed more an act of political fealty than considered legal judgment since it relied on many arguments that were demonstrably false. Opponents of the ICC refuse to recognize that in today’s interdependent world all major problems are global and require global solutions. Binding international rules have become necessary and are accepted universally to protect the common interest. The prevention of massive crimes against humanity deserves equal protection of universal law.

    Mr. Kissinger makes an argument that, when needed, additional ad hoc tribunals can be created by the Security Council. Until the ICC is fully functional ad hoc courts may prove to be unavoidable to curb some of the more outrageous cases of impunity. But a bevy of independent courts is hardly an adequate deterrent to universal crimes. Justice regarding the most serious crimes in the world can not depend upon the political whim of those who control the United Nations. The crimes must be spelled out in advance and not condemned only retroactively. Temporary courts created a la carte are very costly and lack the uniformity required by an international legal system. It is understandable that a former Secretary of State should not be eager to place national politicians under the supervision of an international judicial system. He accuses the ICTY of allowing ” prosecutorial discretion without accountability” – ignoring all the controls that exist to prevent abuse. He makes the unfounded allegation that the “definitions of the relevant crimes are vague and highly susceptible to politicized application.” His statement that “defendants will not enjoy due process as understood in the United States” is refuted by a host of prominent international lawyers, including a former Legal Adviser to both the Defense and State Departments. (See 95 American Journal of International Law (Jan. 2001) 124.)

    In concluding, Kissinger, the constant diplomat, makes three “Modest Proposals”. He suggests that the Security Council appoint a committee to monitor human rights violations and report when judicial action appears necessary. If the local government has not been democratically elected or seems incapable of sitting in fair judgment, the Council may set up additional ad hoc tribunals. But the Council must specify the scope of prosecutions and provide for due process. He fears “one sidedness” of the pursuit of universal jurisdiction which “may undermine the political will to sustain the humane norms of international behavior so necessary to temper the violent times in which we live.” He ignores the reality that other states will demand the same rights that the U.S. wishes to reserve for itself. What it boils down to in the end is that Henry Kissinger says he agrees with the goals of the international criminal court, and even gives some credit to its advocates, but he fails to recognize that the safeguards he seeks from an ICC are already in place. He remains uncomfortable with what he perceives to be the speed and vigor with which the idea of universal crimes punishable in an international court is now moving forward. His call for a public debate is fully justified. Let an informed public study the facts and then let the politicians know whether they prefer politics as usual to law.

    *Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. Harvard 1943, a former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor.

  • WARNING

    A misguided trap is being set by right wing conservatives. It threatens our national security interests and endangers our military personnel. A cleverly mislabeled “Servicemembers Protection Act,” was recently passed by the House and is now pending in the Senate where it was appended as an amendment linked to the Foreign Relations Act authorizing payment of arrears to the United Nations. In the guise of protecting our military, the amendment is clearly designed to abort the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC) now being formed at the United Nations. The Act threatens to impose economic and military sanctions against any nation that dares to support the Court.

    Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina leads the vigorous campaign that would repudiate the rule of law laid down at the Nuremberg trials after World War II – that aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity and major war crimes would never again go unpunished. Senator Helms and his supporters demand exemption and immunity for all U.S. personnel. Conservative attempts to abort the ICC defy the clear wishes of the vast majority of nations, including our leading European allies. We are seen as a bully that wants the rule of law for everyone else but not for ourselves. Without such a court, our military personnel will remain completely at the mercy of their captors, rather than under the protective shield of a fair tribunal created and supervised by the international community.

    The campaign to kill the court relies on unfounded allegations designed to frighten an uninformed public. Scholarly studies by outstanding legal experts agree that it would be in the U.S. national interest to support the International Criminal Court. See for example, the publication last year by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , the comprehensive speech by Senator Leahy of Vermont on Dec. 15, 2000; the recommendation of the American Bar Association in Feb. 2001, the conclusion sent to Congressman Henry Hyde on Feb. 13, 2001 by ten former Presidents of the American Society of International Law, endorsing “U.S. acceptance of the Treaty without change…”; the editorial in the American Journal of International Law by Monroe Leigh, former Counsel to both the State and Defense Departments, that the United states can most effectively protect its national-security interests, as well as the individual interests of U.S. nationals, by accepting the International Criminal Court, ” — better sooner than later.” ((95 AJIL 131, Jan. 2001). None of these persuasive opinions are ever mentioned by opponents of the ICC.

    Those who believe in the rule of law that applies equally to everyone had better let their voices be heard very soon if we are to move toward a more humane and peaceful world.

  • Moving Humanity Toward a Great Future

    The sight of 152 national leaders streaming into the United Nations headquarters for a Millennium Summit meeting filled me with rejoicing. The leaders were called together by the Secretary General to develop plans for action to move toward lasting peace and a sustainable future for every one on Earth. They endorsed an eight-page plan to deal with the world community’s hardest problems – and the UN staff has responded to the Summit mandate.

    That gathering was particularly encouraging for me because it came close to being what I had envisioned thirty-three years ago in articles for the Center Magazine and the Saturday Review. Those articles focused on the signs I saw then of the coming transformation of humanity – when people everywhere would act to meet the needs of every member of the human family. I saw the creative powers of human beings being released in a glorious surge of new achievements.

    In the Center Magazine I proposed that the Secretary General should be authorized by the UN to present annual reports on the state of humanity – reports based on information drawn from all of the nations and broadcast around the world each year. I contended that the reports should emphasize the noblest deeds and wisest statements of human beings in every field. These reports should salute Heroes of Humanity – men and women who were highly creative and compassionate, who served one another and helped one another, who broke the bonds that kept others from developing their abilities, who displayed the deepest respect for the inherent dignity of each human person.

    The Millennium Summit was certainly based on the transforming principles that I expected to see. Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the leaders there to take every possible step to enable the people of every country to move upward in health and prosperity – and to make a strong effort to reduce the number of people living in dire poverty by 50 percent by the year 2015. His goals were clearly similar to those of an American President – Harry Truman – who declared in an inaugural address in 1949: “Only by helping the least fortunate of its members to help themselves can the human family achieve the decent, satisfying life that is the right of all people.”

    The gathering of the world’s political leaders of the UN in the year 2000 must be followed year-by-year by reports to humanity from the Secretary General. Year after year, the people of this planet must be reminded of what wonderful, mysterious, amazing beings they actually are. There must be continuing celebrations of human greatness.

    I do not believe that political leaders – even the best ones among them – can adequately represent the brilliance, the beauty, and enormous diversities of human beings. Future Summit Meetings and future reports must involve singers and dancers, choirs of voices, painters and sculptors, novelists and historians and poets, musicians and composers, mystics and spiritual servants, meditators and mediators, theologians, retreat masters, and scientists, homebuilders and architects, craftsmen and teachers, administrators and free wheelers – people from every field. Every celebration should proclaim and reflect the inexhaustible energies of love.

    The Millennium Summit revived for many people the torrent of hope with which we began the New Year. On the first day of the year 2000 there were television broadcasts from places we had never seen before — showing people welcoming the New Era with songs and dances, with outbursts of exuberant joy. We felt the kinship of belonging to one human family – but the wave of linkage subsided as the patterns of previous centuries took over again. The new perspectives which we had glimpsed through global communications were not absorbed into our thinking and acting.

    But the gathering of leaders at the UN brought back our awareness of the fact that we do live in a Time of Transformation. With all their capacities and their limitations, the leaders made informal contacts with one another that they had never experienced before. When Fidel Castro came close to Bill Clinton and shook Clinton’s hand before anyone could stop him, there was a moment of change that would not be forgotten. And the President heard comments from other leaders who milled around him and approached him as a person. He responded to them and he had a personal impact on each one of them.

    The effects of the Millennium Summit will be felt in countless ways. The UN has already gained new vitality from it – new attention from the media, new understanding from people who had largely ignored it. The leaders who mingled there, who talked in the halls and encountered one another unexpectedly, will feel wider responsibilities to the world community as well as to their own nations.

    Yet this Time of Transformation goes far beyond the repercussions of a conference of presidents and prime ministers – it has started dialogues in the homes of people everywhere – and around the Earth through the Internet. It calls for a continuous recognition of the creative events occurring in all countries. It demands a wider awareness of the fast currents of change that are carrying us into new circles of conflict and compassion, new embraces, new surges of evolution, tall feelings of Hope that great things are coming.

    In July of this year, fifty passionate advocates of long-range thinking and constructive action took part in a three-day Peace Retreat sponsored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria, a conference and retreat center in Santa Barbara, with the purpose of connecting their lives to one another and becoming more effective in benefiting humanity and a threatened world. Much attention was given to the ideas of Joanna Macy, a Buddhist philosopher and activist, who believes that many signs indicate a Great Turning in human attitudes. She asserts that many people are turning away from the destructive habits of an industrial society toward a Life Sustaining Society – toward cooperative actions to save the Earth. She believes that this movement “is gaining momentum today through the choices of countless individuals and groups.”

    The men and women in the sessions at La Casa cited these goals: “To provide people the opportunity to experience and share with others their innermost responses to the present condition of our world; to reframe their pain for the world as evidence of their interconnectedness in the web of life and hence their power to take part in its healing; to provide people with concepts – from system science, deep ecology, or spiritual traditions – which illumine this power along with exercises which reveal its play in their own lives . . . to enable people to embrace the Great Turning as a challenge which they are fully capable of meeting in a variety of ways, and as a privilege in which they can take joy . . .”

    The soaring presence of joy permeated the gathering in Santa Barbara. We danced and we sang, we looked at one another face-to-face, finding deep realities in each other’s eyes; we imagined what the people of the next century might ask us if we were confronted by representatives of future generations. We went far forward in time and in our sharing of our thoughts and emotions. We laughed together and some of us cried. We felt the potential greatness of the human species.

    That experience in the beautiful surroundings of La Casa de Maria in Santa Barbara reinforced my conviction that Summit Meetings for Humanity should be held annually or possibly more often. It made me determined again to uphold a Right of Celebration as a human right essential for a full understanding of the immortal power in the depths of human beings.

    Walter Wriston, author of “The Twilight of Sovereignty,” has given us a vivid description of the increasing impact of the global communications system which now provides unlimited channels for education and illumination: “Instead of merely invalidating George Orwell’s vision of Big Brother watching the citizen, information technology has allowed the reverse to happen. The average citizen is able to watch Big Brother. Individuals anywhere in the world with a computer and a modem can access thousands of databases internationally. And these individuals, who communicate with each other electronically regardless of race, gender, or color, are spreading the spirit of personal expression – of freedom – to the four corners of the earth.”

    Noting that we are now living in what can be called “a global village,” Wriston observed: “In a global village, denying people human rights or democratic freedoms no longer means denying them an abstraction they have never experienced, but rather it means denying them the established customs of the village. Once people are convinced that these things are possible in the village, an enormous burden falls upon those who would withhold them.”

    This is the Age of Open Doors – and the doors cannot be closed against anyone. More than fifty years ago, the UN General Assembly endorsed a revolutionary statement drafted by a committee headed by an American woman, Eleanor Roosevelt – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Assembly called upon all member countries and people everywhere “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or terrorists.” The Declaration is now part of the human heritage – an essential element in the aspirations of people all over the planet.

    The Declaration proclaims a bedrock fact: “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the Foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Every Summit Meeting for Humanity in all the years to come should begin with a reading of the thirty specific articles in that Declaration. It encourages us to become intensely aware of our own marvelous gifts – the package that came to us in the process of becoming human. It sanctions the pleasure of trying new thoughts, of taking new steps on new paths, and tossing our fears behind us. In the light of it, we welcome the hunger to know and to grow that we see in all the glorious beings around us.

    Many scientists now acknowledge that human beings embody the creative power of the universe in a special way. We are connected with the divine power which shaped the stars and brought all things into existence. We are limited only by the range of our imagination – our visions of what can be done.

    Herman Hesse, a great novelist, described our situation most beautifully. He wrote:

    “What then can give rise to a true spirit of peace on earth? Not commandments and not practical experience. Like all human progress, the love of peace must come from knowledge.

    It is the knowledge of the living substance in us, in each of us, in you and me. . . . the secret godliness that each of us bears within us. It is the knowledge that, starting from this innermost point, we can at all times transcend all pairs of opposites, transforming white into black, evil into good, night into day.

    The Indians call it Atman; the Chinese, Tao; the Christians call it grace.

    When the supreme knowledge is present (as in Jesus, Buddha, Plato, or Lao-Tzu) a threshold is crossed, beyond which miracles begin. There war and enmity cease. We can read of it in the New Testament and in the discourses of Gautama. Anyone who is so inclined can laugh at it and call it ‘introverted rubbish,’ but to one who has experienced it his enemy becomes his brother, death becomes birth, disgrace honor, calamity good fortune . . .

    Each thing on earth discloses itself two-fold, as ‘of this world’ and not of this world. But ‘this world’ means what is outside us. Everything that is outside us can become enemy, danger, fear, and death. The light dawns with the experience that this entire ‘outward world’ is not only an object of our perception but at the same time the creation of our soul, with the transformation of all outward into inward things, of the world into the self.”

    As humanity moves from one summit to another, as the deep connections of the human family shift from the outward world to the world within us, as we know one another fully at last, the inner knowledge enfolds all of us. A glorious age is around us and in us, and we will take it all into ourselves.

     

  • Non-Proliferation Treaty Stays Alive – for now

    With the exception of a few cloistered academics, almost no one would seriously argue that the spread of nuclear weapons would make the world a safer place. Most individuals, including policy makers, understand that it is essential to future security to keep nuclear weapons from spreading. Based on this understanding, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was put forward and signed by the US, UK and USSR (three countries with nuclear weapons) in 1968. The Treaty entered into force in 1970. Since then the Non-Proliferation Treaty has become the centerpiece of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Currently there are only four countries in the world that have not signed and ratified the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba. The first three of these have nuclear weapons.

    At the heart of the NPT is a basic bargain: the countries without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire or otherwise develop these weapons in exchange for the nuclear weapons states agreeing to engage in good faith efforts to eliminate their arsenals. This bargain is found in Article VI of the Treaty, which calls for “good faith” negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Many of the non-nuclear weapons states have complained over the years that the nuclear weapons states have not upheld their end of the bargain.

    In 1995, when the Treaty was extended indefinitely after powerful lobbying by the nuclear weapons states, these states promised the “determined pursuit” of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of their elimination. Over the next five years, however, these countries continued to rely upon their nuclear arsenals to the dismay of many countries without nuclear weapons.

    When the five-year Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was held in April and May 2000, the parties to the Treaty, including the nuclear weapons states, agreed to take a number of “practical steps” to implement promises under Article VI of the Treaty. Thirteen steps were listed. I would like to highlight just two. The first of these is an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….” The second is “early entry into force and full implementation of START II [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II] and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons….”

    The “unequivocal undertaking” is language that the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa) has been pressing for, along with practical steps to achieve “the total elimination” of nuclear weapons. In essence this commitment is a reaffirmation of what the nuclear weapons states promised many years ago when they first signed the Treaty in 1968.

    Moving forward with START II and START III are also in the offing. After many years, the Russian Duma finally ratified START II, and President Putin has indicated that he is prepared to proceed with reductions to 1,000 to 1,500 strategic nuclear warheads in START III. The US has responded for inexplicable reasons that it is only prepared to discuss reductions to the 2,500 level at this point, a response hardly in keeping with its promises to pursue good faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons globally.

    An even greater problem, however, lies in US determination to deploy a National Missile Defense. It can hardly do this and keep its promise of “preserving and strengthening” the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The US has been trying unsuccessfully to convince the Russians that the ABM Treaty should be amended to allow the US to deploy a National Missile Defense. However, this is exactly what the ABM Treaty was designed to prevent, based on the reasoning that a strong defense would lead to further offensive arms races, and the Russians want nothing to do with altering the ABM Treaty.

    US officials have told the Russians that the National Missile Defense that the US seeks to deploy is aimed not at them, but at “states of concern” (the new US name for states they formerly referred to as “rogue states”). These officials have actually encouraged the Russians to keep their nuclear armed missiles on hair-trigger alert and not reduce the size of their arsenal below START III levels in order to be able to successfully overcome a US National Missile Defense. In their eagerness to promote the National Missile Defense, these officials are actually encouraging Russian policies that will make an accidental or unintended nuclear war more likely. Russia is not buying this, and has made clear that if the US proceeds with deployment of a National Missile Defense, thereby abrogating the ABM Treaty, Russia will withdraw from START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    US insistence on proceeding with a National Missile Defense will be even more destabilizing in Asia. The Chinese have made clear that their response to US deployment of a National Missile Defense will require them to further develop their nuclear forces (at present the Chinese have only 20 nuclear armed missiles capable of reaching US territory). Should China increase its nuclear capabilities, India is likely to follow suit and Pakistan would likely follow India. How Japan, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan would respond remain large question marks.

    At the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference the US committed itself to “preserving and strengthening” the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. US plans to move forward with a National Missile Defense are incompatible with this promise. If the US wants to uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty and prevent the disintegration of this Treaty, it must act in good faith. This means finding another way to deal with potentially dangerous states than building an unworkable, provocative and hugely expensive missile defense system.

    The 2000 NPT Review Conference offered some promise of progress on nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, the fine words Final Document of the Conference notwithstanding, this promise will be dashed if the US continues in its foolhardy and quixotic attempt to put a shield over its head. Such a course will lead only to a leaky umbrella and global nuclear chaos. A far safer course for the US would be to carry out its promise of seeking “the total elimination” of the world’s nuclear arsenals. Without US leadership this will not happen. With US leadership a nuclear weapons free world could become a reality in fairly short order. It is past time for this issue to enter the public arena and move up on the public agenda. The American people deserve to become part of this decision which will so dramatically affect their future and the future of the planet.

  • A Nuclear Crisis

    This article appeared in the Washington Post, Editorials and Opinions Section.

    Every five years, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT) comes up for reassessment by the countries that have signed it. This is the treaty that provides for international restraints (and inspections) on nuclear programs. It covers not only the nuclear nations but 180 other countries as well, including Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya. An end to the NPT could terminate many of these inspections and open a Pandora’s box of nuclear proliferation in states that already present serious terrorist threats to others.

    Now it is time for the 30-year-old NPT to be reviewed (in April, by an international assembly at the United Nations), and, sad to say, the current state of affairs with regard to nuclear proliferation is not good. In fact, I think it can be said that the world is facing a nuclear crisis. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has had a good deal to do with creating it.

    At the last reassessment session, in 1995, a large group of non-nuclear nations with the financial resources and technology to develop weapons–including Egypt, Brazil and Argentina–agreed to extend the NPT, but with the proviso that the five nuclear powers take certain specific steps to defuse the nuclear issue: adoption of a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996; conclusion of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and “determined pursuit” of efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them.

    It is almost universally conceded that none of these commitments has been honored. India and Pakistan have used this failure to justify their joining Israel as nations with recognized nuclear capability that are refusing to comply with NPT restraints. And there has been a disturbing pattern of other provocative developments:

    • For the first time I can remember, no series of summit meetings is underway or in preparation to seek further cuts in nuclear arsenals. The START II treaty concluded seven years ago by presidents George Bush and Boris Yeltsin has not been seriously considered for ratification by the Russian parliament.
    • Instead of moving away from reliance on nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War, both the United States and NATO have sent disturbing signals to other nations by declaring that these weapons are still the cornerstone of Western security policy, and both have re-emphasized that they will not comply with a “no first use” policy. Russia has reacted to this U.S. and NATO policy by rejecting its previous “no first use” commitment; strapped for funds and unable to maintain its conventional forces of submarines, tanks, artillery, and troops, it is now much more likely to rely on its nuclear arsenal.
    • The United States, NATO and others still maintain arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons, including up to 200 nuclear weapons in Western Europe.
    • Despite the efforts of Gens. Lee Butler and Andrew Goodpaster, Adm. Stansfield Turner and other military experts, American and Russian nuclear missiles are still maintained in a “hair-trigger alert” status, susceptible to being launched in a spur-of-the-moment crisis or even by accident.
    • After years of intense negotiation, recent rejection by the U.S. Senate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was a serious blow to global nuclear control efforts and to confidence in American leadership.
    • There is a notable lack of enforcement of the excessively weak international agreements against transfer of fissile materials.
    • The prospective adoption by the United States of a limited “Star Wars” missile defense system has already led Russia, China and other nations to declare that this would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which has prevailed since 1972. This could destroy the fabric of existing international agreements among the major powers.
    • There is no public effort or comment in the United States or Europe calling for Israel to comply with the NPT or submit to any other restraints. At the same time, we fail to acknowledge what a powerful incentive this is to Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt to join the nuclear community.
    • The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) has been recently abolished, removing an often weak but at least identifiable entity to explore arms issues.

    I believe that the general public would be extremely concerned if these facts were widely known, but so far such issues have not been on the agenda in presidential debates.

    A number of responsible non-nuclear nations, including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden have expressed their disillusionment with the lack of progress toward disarmament. The non-proliferation system may not survive unless the major powers give convincing evidence of compliance with previous commitments.

    In April, it is imperative that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty be reconfirmed and subsequently honored by leaders who are inspired to act wisely and courageously by an informed public. This treaty has been a key deterrent to the proliferation of weapons, and its unraveling would exert powerful pressures even on peace-loving nations to develop a nuclear capability.

    All nuclear states must renew efforts to achieve worldwide reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. In the meantime, it requires no further negotiations for leaders of nuclear nations to honor existing nuclear security agreements, including the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties, and to remove nuclear weapons from their present hair-trigger alert status.

    Just as American policy is to blame for many of the problems, so can our influence help resolve the nuclear dilemma that faces the world.