Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: victims

  • Rethinking the 3 Rs

    Until quite recently, ‘the 3 Rs’ simply meant reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic. One could very well get by with basic competencies in literacy and math. Yet once Ida Noddack proposed her theory of nuclear fission, the rethinking of our knowledge base began. As Hans Bethe revealed in his interview with Dr. Mary Palevsky, we might not have had nuclear bombs if the discovery of fission had not coincided with the movements of world war.

    Reframing

    John Borrie of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) explains ‘reframing’ as a move from what is deemed acceptable. The shift we see through acceptance of a total and legally binding ban on nuclear weapons is, at its core, an ideological and philosophical one. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a milestone in the ongoing reframing of global security concepts. While some may see the ban treaty as a stand against nuclear weapons states, we can also understand the action as taking a stand for peace by legally de-legitimizing weapons of mass destruction.

    However, reframing is directly linked to access to knowledge. The less we know, the less we question what is acceptable. The more we know the more action we are likely to take when the human consequences of the nuclear cycle are recognized. Hence, the 3 Rs of Human Security embedded in the nuclear ban treaty: Recognition, Restitution, and Remediation.

    Recognition

    The nuclear ban treaty recognizes the “unacceptable suffering of and harm caused to” those who experienced – and continue to experience – the effects of nuclear weapons, those whom Bo Jacobs and Mick Broderick term “Global Hibakusha.” The ban treaty also recognizes “the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons activities on indigenous peoples” like the Pacific populations of the Marshall Islands, Australia, Kiribati, Hawai’i, and Te Ao Maohi.

    It is the lived experiences of those who continue to suffer from the effects of nuclear attacks and nuclear weapons testing, and their unwavering activism, that have led us to reframe and define Human Security through a lens of humanitarian consequence and human rights.

    Moreover, the treaty recognizes nuclear physics applied through tools of war – quite simply the intentional twisting of science into devastation. Or as Oppenheimer famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita when he witnessed the Trinity test, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    Restitution

    Victims of nuclear activity are entitled to restitution. Full stop.

    During negotiations on the nuclear ban treaty, government and civil society delegations lobbied vigorously for the inclusion of article 6(1), which addresses “victim assistance.” This key point is an imperative for countries like the Marshall Islands where more than USD$2 billion have been awarded to the Enewetak, Rongelap, Utrik, and Bikini communities through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal – awarded claims that the United States refuses to honor.

    Remediation

    When my oldest son was 6 years old, he told me that he wanted to be a scientist. I said that was great but asked why. He replied that he wanted to be a scientist so he could figure out a way to clean up his islands; if scientists could figure out a way to put poison in his islands, there must be a way to take the poison out.

    To those who continue to experience the effects of ionizing radiation, like my sons, remediation is a responsibility not an option.

    Article 6(2) of the treaty compels state parties to take responsibility for their nuclear actions through “necessary and appropriate measures towards the environmental remediation of areas so contaminated.” In other words, taking the poison out of our children’s islands.

    Recentering  

    Nuclear states would like us to believe in deterrence, yet Borrie argues the need to critically analyze the knowledge base for such a one-sided theory. In light of the Pacific finding itself in the crosshairs of current nuclear aggressions, can nuclear states provide empirical evidence that deterrence works? The burden lies with nuclear states to prove that the consequences of nuclear weapons do not poison systems of sustainability thus cultivating global insecurity.

    Not all 122 states that voted for the ban treaty in July have ratified the legally binding instrument. Some are following their own constitutional procedures to ensure ratification, while others are constrained by agreements and conflicting treaties. However, the very existence of a nuclear ban treaty illuminates the philosophical shift resulting from more than 70 years of active reframing. The treaty shows us that we have evolved beyond the use of atomic science as a show of weaponry force; instead, recentering humanity to establish an era of remediation and peace.

    We must continue to broaden our context of security through well-researched policy with privilege given to lived experience, and recognition of insecurity as a result of atomic “peace.”

    How much longer must we live in fear?

    Brooke Takala is a mother, PhD candidate at the University of the South Pacific, and co-coordinator of an Enewetak NGO called Elimon̄dik.

    For information on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons https://www.un.org/disarmament/ptnw/

    For more information on US human radiation experimentation, including experimentation on the Marshallese people, refer to http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/radiation/

    Follow the treaty signatures/ratifications at http://www.icanw.org/status-of-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/

  • Who Will Assist the Victims of Nuclear Weapons?

    On 30 August 1945 Dr Marcel Junod, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Japan, received a chilling cable from an ICRC representative in Hiroshima. The cable read as follows: “Conditions appalling. City wiped out. Eighty percent of all hospitals destroyed or seriously damaged. Inspected two emergency hospitals, conditions beyond description. Effect of bomb mysteriously serious. Many victims apparently recovering suddenly suffer fatal relapse due to decomposition of white blood cells and other internal injuries, now dying in great numbers. Estimated still over one hundred thousand wounded in emergency hospitals located surroundings. Sadly lacking bandaging materials, medicines.”

    On his arrival in Hiroshima, Marcel Junod came face-to-face with the grim reality of medical care after an atomic bombing of a city and its medical infrastructure. In addition to the destruction and damage to hospitals mentioned in the cable, the impact on those meant to care for the sick and wounded was equally severe: 90% of Hiroshima’s doctors were killed or injured by the explosion, as were 92% of the city’s nurses and 80% of its pharmacists. There was a desperate need for blood but no possibility of blood transfusions as most potential donors were either dead or injured. To put it bluntly, the city’s capacity to treat victims had been wiped out. As a result, there was little or no health-care provision in the immediate aftermath of the explosion.

    This same catastrophic scenario – and more – awaits us if nuclear weapons are ever used again. While the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons increased dramatically during the Cold War, the capacity of States and international agencies to assist the victims did not. As you will hear tomorrow, the ICRC has over the past six years made an in-depth assessment of its own capacity, and that of other agencies, to help the victims of nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons. We have concluded that an effective means of assisting a substantial portion of survivors of a nuclear detonation, while adequately protecting those delivering assistance, is not currently available at national level and not feasible at international level. It is highly unlikely that the immense investment required to develop such capacity will ever be made. If made, it would likely remain insufficient.

    In April 2010, my predecessor, Jakob Kellenberger, spoke of this state of affairs in a statement to Geneva’s diplomatic community. In this statement the ICRC made four key points:

    • Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.
    • It is difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.
    • Regardless of their views on the legality of nuclear weapons, States must ensure that they are never again used.
    • Preventing the use of nuclear weapons requires fulfilment of existing obligations to pursue negotiations aimed at prohibiting and completely eliminating such weapons through a legally binding international treaty.

    We are encouraged by the response to the ICRC’s appeal in 2010. Since then, the 190 States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have recognized the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and the relevance of international humanitarian law in this regard. Those States have also reaffirmed the call made by the United Nations Security Council at its summit in 2009, and by Presidents Obama and Medvedev earlier that year, to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons. In 2011 the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement made a historic appeal on nuclear weapons, in the same vein as that of the ICRC. In it, the Movement undertook to raise awareness among the public, scientists, health professionals and decision-makers of its ongoing concerns and to promote the norm of non-use and the elimination of nuclear weapons among governments and the public. In October 2012 the Movement’s concerns were reflected in a statement made by 34 States to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee.

    The ICRC warmly welcomes the Norwegian Government’s initiative to convene this conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Although nuclear weapons have been debated in military, technical and geopolitical terms for decades, it is astounding that States have never before come together to address their humanitarian consequences.

    In our view, no informed political or legal position on these weapons can be adopted without a detailed grasp of the immediate consequences of these weapons on human beings and on medical and other infrastructure. It is also essential to understand the long-term effects on human health and on the genetics of survivors; consequences that have been confirmed by research and have been witnessed and treated for nearly seven decades by the Japanese Red Cross hospitals in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition, one cannot ignore the insight offered by modern climate science into the implications of nuclear weapon use for the world’s climate and food production. And last, but by no means least, States must answer the question: Who will assist the victims of these weapons and how? The next two days provide a unique and historic opportunity to begin addressing these fundamental issues.

    In closing, I am confident that, as you broach these issues, you will share the ICRC’s commitment to prevent any future use of nuclear weapons. I also hope that you will be driven by the sense of opportunity generated by this conference and by the belief that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons must be at the centre of the debate. This is an important moment to recognize and understand these consequences, thus ensuring that they are central to future discussions.

    And yet, an awareness of the consequences of nuclear weapons will not be enough to definitively prevent the use of and bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons. Public awareness, media interest and the sustained commitment of responsible State authorities are crucial. The international community has not always seized upon opportunities to prevent human suffering. In the case of nuclear weapons, prevention – including the development of a legally binding treaty to prohibit and eliminate such weapons – is the only way forward.

    Peter Maurer is President of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  • 2012 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award Acceptance Speech

    Tony de BrumIt is with profound gratitude and humility that I receive this coveted Distinguished Peace Leadership Award 2012. I wish to thank Nuclear Age Peace Foundation for the great honor.

    I am aware that in receiving this award, I am following in the footsteps of some of the most gallant and respected notables of our century – among them, His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the late King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, Jacques Cousteau, Walter Cronkite and many other distinguished champions of peace.

    I am truly humbled to be following the lead of such exceptional human beings. With their contributions to world peace and harmony they have touched and influenced many of us gathered this evening and impacted the lives of many more around the world.

    My life was deeply traumatized by the nuclear legacy of the United States in the Marshall Islands.  My public career has been shaped by the nuclear insult to my country and the Marshallese people. I have endeavored to make my modest contribution to peace by bringing their story to the world through all opportunities available to me.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    I have been a student of the horrific impacts of the nuclear weapons testing program for most of my life. I served as interpreter for American officials who proclaimed Bikini safe for resettlement and commenced a program to repatriate the Bikini people who for decades barely survived on the secluded island of Kili. I accompanied the American High Commissioner of the Trust Territory just two years later to once again remove the repatriated residents from Bikini because concentrations of strontium and cesium had exceeded safe limits and their exposure had become too high for the established US government’s health standards.

    I was also personally involved in the translation of the Enewetak Environmental Impact Statement that declared Enewetak in the western Marshall Islands safe for resettlement.  In a television interview on CBS Sixty Minutes I expressed my concern to Morley Safer at the time by describing the military public relations efforts associated with the Enewetak clean-up as a dog-and-pony show.  Today, for the most part the atoll remains unsafe for human habitation.

    Later, during negotiations to terminate the trust territory arrangement mandated by the United Nations and assigned to the United States, we discovered that certain scientific information regarding Enewetak was being withheld from us because, as the official US government memorandum stated, “the Marshallese negotiators might make overreaching demands” on the United States if the facts about the extent of damage in the islands were known to us.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    The Marshall Islands’ close encounter with the bomb did not end with the detonations themselves. In recent years, documents released by the United States government have uncovered even more horrific aspects of this burden borne by the Marshallese people in the name of international peace and security. US government documents prove in no uncertain terms that its scientists conducted human radiation experiments on Marshallese citizens and American servicemen assigned to our part of the world. Some of our people were injected with or coerced to imbibe fluids laced with radioactive substances. Other experimentation involved the purposeful and premature resettlement of people on islands highly contaminated by the weapons tests to study how human beings absorb radionuclides either from their foods or from their poisonous environment.

    Much of this human experimentation occurred in populations either exposed to near lethal amounts of radiation, or to “control” populations who were told they would receive medical “ care” for participating in these studies to help their fellow citizens. At the conclusion of all these studies, the United States still maintained that no positive linkage could be established between the tests and the health status of the Marshallese. Just in the past few years, a National Cancers Institute study has predicted a substantively higher than expected incidence of cancer in the Marshall Islands resulting from the atomic tests.

    Throughout the years, America’s nuclear history in the Marshall Islands has been colored with official denial, self-serving control of information, and abrogation of commitment to redress the shameful wrongs done to the Marshallese people. The scientists and military officials involved in the testing program picked and chose their study subjects, recognized certain communities as exposed when it served their interests, and denied monitoring and medicinal attention to subgroups within the Marshall Islands.

    I remember well their visits to my village in Likiep where they subjected every one of us to tests and invasive physical examinations the United States government denied ever carrying out. In 1978 as a representative on the negotiations with the United States, we raised the issue requesting that raw data gathered during these visits be made available to us. United States representatives responded by saying that our recollections were juvenile and could not possibly reflect the realities of the time.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    While a resolution of the status question was eventually reached, the issue of damages and personal injury from the testing remain a matter of contention between our two countries to this day.  The unresolved aspect of the agreement remains the question of damages and personal injury claims yet to be addressed.  Attempts to resolve these outstanding issues through the Compact of Free Association between our two countries as well as through the United States court system have been unsuccessful.

    The courts have invoked the statutes of limitation while the administration contends that the circumstances of the claims do not constitute provable differences from knowledge based on which the agreements in 1986 were reached.  We do not deny signing an agreement. We do admit though that this was based on information provided us by the United States contending that the damages were as they described in various studies presented to us to justify the adequacy of nuclear compensation and purported to describe in full the true damages caused by the tests.

    In order to break this impasse we would require evidence which has been declared top secret by the United States to which the public has no access.  It is interesting to note that the United States has expressed strong interest to bring the nuclear issues with the Marshall Islands to closure.  We have responded that there can be no closure without full disclosure.

    Further the United States Government tells us, our government is now responsible for nuclear claims, stemming from what is called the espousal provision of the Compact of Free Association. That basically says, we have settled all claims and should any new ones arise, the Government of the Marshall Islands will be responsible and liable. Ironically, the only other time in the history of the United States where ‘espousal’ was used to squelch claims was in the settlement to release the hostages in Iran.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    Last month in Geneva, the 21st Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the Independent Special Rapporteur’s report, which in short, found that the US nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands resulted in both immediate and continuing effects on the human rights of the Marshallese.  The adopted report also sets forth a set of far reaching recommendations, among them, under subparagraph (f); “Guarantee the right to effective remedy for the Marshallese people, including by providing full funding for the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to award adequate compensation for past and future claims, and exploring other forms of reparation, where appropriate, such as restitution, rehabilitation and measures of satisfaction; including, public apologies, public memorials and guarantees of non- repetition; and consider the establishment of a truth and reconciliation mechanism or similar alternative justice mechanisms.”

    How far the United States government will act on these recommendations remains uncertain.  In spite of all that has occurred in this relationship, the American people will not find a better friend than the people of the Marshall Islands.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    I accept this high honor you bestow upon me this evening in the name of my country, my fellow citizens, and all who have in one way or another contributed to the understanding of the Marshallese nuclear plight.

    I accept it on behalf of Lijon Aknelang and the Almira Matayoshi of Rongelap Atoll, who passed away recently but were never discouraged in their fight to find peace and justice. I dedicate it to the mothers of Rongelap whose shameful treatment by American scientists violated all acceptable norms of human decency and respect.  I accept it on behalf of Senator Jeton Anjain and his brother Mayor John Anjain, who exposed the dark secrets of the experimentation on the Rongelap people.  This honor I share with Mayor Anjain’s son, Lekoj Anjain who became the first recognized leukemia victim of nuclear tests. I accept this honor on behalf of the Marshallese Traditional Leaders, especially Iroijlaplap Jebro Kabua and Anjua Loeak, who made lands under their stewardship available for the humane resettlement of displace nuclear nomads.  I accept it on behalf of Marshallese community leaders who petitioned in vain to stop the tests through avenues known to them, both directly to the United States and to the United Nations. I accept on behalf of Senator Ishmael John of Enewetak who fought to his death to bring justice to the people of his home who to this day remain unable to resettle their ancestral lands and whose atoll continues to store nuclear wastes including plutonium.

    I would be remiss if I did not include the many friends throughout the world who have contributed to our knowledge of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the clear and present danger they are to the universe as we know it. I accept it on behalf of all Marshallese whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by the horrific effects of the nuclear test.  But most of all, dear friends, I accept on behalf of my granddaughter Zoe, who, as a brave young four year old, battled with leukemia for two very difficult years, and is now declared healthy enough to return to school and live a normal life.  For this I will always be thankful to God and His Mercy.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    For the use of our country in the maintenance of what is called an unquestionable military supremacy over the world, Kwajalein Atoll, which is my parliamentary constituency, has been tasked to bear the burden.  I therefore dedicate this honor to the people of Kwajalein whose continuing sacrifice of providing the home of their forefathers for the “preservation of international peace and security” continues to this day and for the next seventy-four years.

    The Marshall Islands are by no means the only ones who have experienced a taste of nuclear horror.  The people of Hiroshima and Nakasaki, Kazakhstan, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and French Polynesia have had first-hand experience.  The 67 nuclear events in the Marshalls, equivalent to 1.7 Hiroshima shots every day for 12 years came complete with physical displacement, nuclear illness, birth anomalies, alienation of land, massive destruction of property, injury and death.  But perhaps the most hurtful of all was official denial and secretive cover up and refusal to accept responsibility on the part of the perpetrators.

    The Marshall Islands were also subject to years of expensive clean up and rehabilitation of land and habitat which fell far short of restoring the lands and sites to any productive use.  In certain parts, repatriation will not be possible for at least 12,000 years. And that’s only from testing.

    Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned is that any way you look at it, nuclear weapons and the horrific destruction they bring, whether in war or in experimentation, leave permanent and irreversible damage to man and nature. All things surrounding nuclear weaponry threaten life on our planet and perhaps even our universe. It is not good for men and women, boys and girls, and dogs and cats.  It is harmful to trees and to plants we eat.  It poisons fish and wildlife.  It makes our world less, not more, secure.

    If the lessons of the end of World War II, and the lessons of all the tests conducted since then have not been learned then we must learn them.  If the experiences of laboratory exposure, also denied, are not part of our learning pathway, then they must be added.  If we do not take the message of nuclear survivors to heart, then we will have to soften our hearts.  Nuclear weapons threaten us, they do not protect us.  No matter where they are located or deployed, one push of a red button could be the end of life as we know it.  That is not a chance worth taking.

    If we continue to imagine any kind of a benefit being derived from the fact that the atomic powers are now armed to the teeth, then the sacrifice of all we have cited in this brief message tonight will have been in vain.  Enlightened modern leaders of the world have not been blind to this fact of life.  It is just that they have yet to put the matter of the nuclear race to rest.

    Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

    Barely forty-eight hours ago we were in India at the 11th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity where 193 countries, both governments and non-government organizations, met to discuss the accelerated decline in the integrity of the environment and its genetic resources. Also debated were programs and efforts to address the unsustainable global development direction and the dangers that it poses to the world.

    As in nuclear disarmament efforts, we have a situation where world leaders fully understand the problem, are aware of the solutions, but cannot decide who should go first.  There is no question that if civilization does not keep global warming under 2 degrees C by 2050, this effort to protect mother earth will be in vain.  I am confident that the entire membership of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is familiar with the issue and knows what must be done to avoid climate chaos.  But like nuclear disarmament, the world know the problem, it knows the solutions, but lacks the collective political will to execute.

    As a small islands developing state, the Marshall Islands, and its neighbors are among the most ecologically vulnerable areas on the planet. We are actively working with other Pacific Islands to ensure that ocean resources in the region are governed and protected from exploitation. As a nation whose single most important productive sector and key export is in fisheries, the state of the world’s oceans and fish stocks and how these vital resources are being exploited remains on the list of our immediate priorities.

    Recently, the Marshall Islands, in partnership with Palau and Micronesia, has undertaken a feasibility study for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion or OTEC technology, which uses the deep ocean temperature differential to generate electricity, water and other marketable by-products.  If successful, OTEC will turn the Marshall Islands and its neighbors from oil-dependent basket case economies into net exporters of renewable energy.  On this score we salute the enlightened efforts on sustainable energy in which our friends in California have been admirably proactive.

    The Marshall Islands cannot afford to wait for global movement on climate change. Barely two meters above sea level, the stakes are a bit high here.  And having had our share of displaced populations, we do not see moving elsewhere as a viable option.  We are partnering with our neighbors in Micronesia in examining alternative financial mechanisms for economic security and earlier this month held a workshop in the islands on the subject of Debt for Adaptation Swap on Climate Change.  This promises to be an innovative means of dealing with nonperforming governmental development loans of the recent past.

    The Micronesia Challenge is a partnership of island states of the North Pacific to jointly set aside for protection and conservation substantial areas of their individual and collective territories.   In addition, Palau, the state of Kosrae in Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands have declared a total ban on fishing and finning of Sharks in their economic zones, effectively creating the world’s largest shark sanctuary.  We are taking these extraordinary steps as proud stewards and protectors of some of the world’s richest and most diverse ecosystems.  We want to leave our planet intact for the benefit of our children, and their children’s children.

    Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been stalwart in its mission of nuclear disarmament and the elimination of the nuclear threat to man.  For the nearly two decades I have been associated with its efforts, I can attest to its diligence and dedication to marshal its resources to promoting peace and harmony in a nuclear free world.  That goal is pure in its intent, necessary in pursuit, and is the only option through which we can leave a world where healthy children and a healthy environment can live in harmony, now and forever.

    For whatever is remaining of my life, I pledge to follow this dream that one day we can rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons and that peace can be achieved not by what harm we can do to each other, but by what good we can do together.

    I share in this award, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, and recognize with gratitude those who have walked with me in this journey of life. I want to thank most especially my wife and my best friend, Rosalie, and our three daughters – Doreen, Dolores and Sally Ann for always standing by my side and supporting me, even when the odds were overwhelming.  My dad, my brothers and sisters and the numerous people who have made it possible for me to be recognized and honored, I wish to express to you my deepest gratitude and kamolol (mahalos).

    For me, the work to address the plight of all affected peoples continues with renewed determination. We owe it to the nuclear victims and the nuclear survivors, but most importantly we owe it to the future generations of our planet.

    Yokwe and God Bless you all.

  • Peacful Tomorrow: Organization of Family Members of Sept. 11th Victims Speak Out at NAPF Event

    On September 24th, Kelly Campbell, who lost her brother in-law to the September 11th attacks, spoke at an event held at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on how she and other family members of Sept. 11th victims came together in their grief to promote peaceful options in search for justice. These individuals formed an organization called September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows (www.peacefultomorrows.org) in an attempt to prevent others from suffering the pains of loss they have in the midst of US military retaliation. “Our grief,” they said, “is not a cry for war.”

    To make clear the connection between their own suffering and the suffering of victims of the “War on Terror,” Peaceful Tomorrows has sent delegates to Afghanistan to meet Afghan civilians who have lost love ones in the US bombing campaigns. These delegates returned with the Afghans’ message of “do not forget us,” and they continue to be in contact with their Afghan sister families.

    According to Campbell, delegates who traveled to Afghanistan were shocked by the stark contrast between the lack of aid for Afghans devastated by US bombing and the outpouring of support and compassion from around the world to their families after the Sept. 11 attacks. To address this injustice, Peaceful Tomorrows advocates for government funded aid to Afghan civilians accidentally bombed by US forces, urging the administration to take responsibility for detrimental effects of its military campaign.

    Representatives from groups in the local community working on Afghan issues, such as the revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), were also present at Tuesday’s meeting, and joined Campbell in strategizing on effective means to reach the media and policy makers with their important message.

    In addition, the participants discussed the links between the military campaign in Afghanistan and the Bush administration’s push to wage war on Iraq, which would no doubt have a devastating impact on the Iraqi civilian population. In a letter to President Bush the Peaceful Tomorrow members stated:

    “We know that war in Iraq would cause the suffering of many thousands of innocent Iraqi families, people who, like our family members on September 11th, will find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. A war would also place our military personnel in harm’s way, causing deaths and the suffering of more American families. It is out of concern for our own service people and for the Iraqi citizens that we implore you to pursue a resolution of the situation in Iraq without war.”

    After the NAPF event Campbell flew directly to Washington D.C. to meet with Congressional representatives to oppose war against Iraq.