Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: women

  • Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Do you think the UK can rethink its position on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

    The UK will only rethink its position on the TPNW when the argument has been won to get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident. The UK cannot sign up without putting in place a time-constrained plan for disarmament, without any conditionality on other nuclear weapons states disarming, so signing up to the TPNW is understood, in effect, to be unilateral nuclear disarmament, given that no other nuclear weapons states are planning to give up their nuclear weapons. While opinion polls over the last decade and a half generally show a majority of the population (especially, young people) in favour of scrapping Trident, this has not affected the policy of the major parties. While smaller parliamentary parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party oppose nuclear weapons, the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats all continue to back Trident and its replacement. The key reason for this is the view that nuclear weapons are necessary to maintain Britain’s status as a world power. While many in the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats favour nuclear disarmament, the leaderships are not willing to risk looking weak on defence by abandoning the nuclear arsenal. So even though recent governments have recognised that cyber warfare, climate change, terrorism and other contemporary factors are actually the key security threats, not nuclear weapons, there is no appetite to change the totemic status of the UK’s nuclear arsenal, in spite of its enormous cost.

    How does Brexit affect the dominant beliefs on nuclear deterrence?

    Brexit has pushed virtually all other political issues down, or off, the political agenda, so it has been very difficult to raise the issue at all through our Parliamentary CND group. One of the effects of Brexit has been to increase the role and influence of the far right, and to increase nationalism, so no doubt nuclear disarmament would be seen as weakening ‘the nation’. So in so far as it is possible to judge, I would say that Brexit will make the political climate less amenable to progress on nuclear disarmament.

    Do you think women have a specific role to play in paving the way to the abolition of nuclear weapons?

    Women are often more prominent in peace and nuclear disarmament movements than in other civil society movements and campaigns, although that may be changing these days with more women entering public life. I have tended to think that this is because some elements of our dominant culture may see peace as ‘weak’ and that warfighting is a male characteristic, along with often more aggressive posturing, whereas caring and nurturing – and protecting future generations – has tended to be the preserve of females. But I do not consider these to be innate, rather to be learned through social conventions. Equally they can be unlearned, and the path to peace and disarmament is open to all to embrace, irrespective of gender.

    Kate Hudson is a British left-wing political activist and academic. Since 2010, she has been the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), having served as chair since 2003. She first became active in the peace movement in the early 1980s during the surge of activity against cruise missiles. With the end of the Cold War, like many others, Kate felt that the issue of nuclear weapons had greatly declined, so she turned to other campaigning work. One of her proudest moments was helping to Embrace the Base at Greenham Common in December 1982, along with 30,000 other women. By the mid-1990s, with the expansion of NATO and the escalation of the U.S. ‘Star Wars’ system, she came back to lead CND just as the ‘war on terror’ was beginning. She has been a key figure in the anti-war movement nationally and internationally and considers international cooperation and solidarity to be the key to the nuclear non-proliferation movement’s ultimate success.

  • Volha Charnysh: In her own words

    Volha Charnysh: In her own words

    Do you believe that nationalism prevents the dismantling of nuclear arsenals?

    Nationalism is probably one of many factors preventing the dismantlement of nuclear arsenals. Research suggests that nationalism predicts endorsement of more hawkish foreign policy. Leaders who cater to nationalist electorates or espouse nationalism themselves are more likely to view nuclear capabilities as status-enhancing and will be less averse to leveraging nuclear threats to achieve their goals – foreign or domestic. For example, Russia’s President Putin often announces new missiles ahead of elections to portray himself as defending Russia’s great power status vis-à-vis the US and to rally nationalist voters.

    The perception of national (in)security, prestige and power are the most dominating factors that have driven states to acquire nuclear weapons. What other factors are at play in countries holding onto their nuclear weapons?

    A country’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons creates vested interests. A lot of people are employed to maintain existing nuclear arsenals and to conduct research, design, and development of new capabilities. Nuclear research labs, big corporations that produce deliver systems, various military and civilian agencies all benefit from holding on to existing arsenals and will lobby politicians to achieve their goals.

    What is your next project?

    My next project will explore cooperation and conflict in diverse societies. I will study how living in a culturally diverse society affects demand for state-provided public goods and willingness to invest in state capacity to provide them. I will also continue working on the legacies of conflict for long-run political development, my second research interest.

    Volha Charnysh is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She received her PhD in Government from Harvard University in May 2017. Dr. Charnysh’s research focuses on historical political economy, legacies of violence, nation- and state-building, and ethnic politics. She is currently working on a book entitled, Migration, Diversity, and Economic Development, which examines the long- term effects of forced migration in the aftermath of World War II in Eastern Europe. Her work synthesizes several decades of micro-level data collected during a year of fieldwork in Poland, and received funding from the Social Science Research Council and Center for European Studies. Charnysh’s work has appeared in American Political Science Review, Comparative Political Studies, and the European Journal of International Relations. She has also contributed articles to Foreign Affairs, Monkey Cage at the Washington Post, National Interest, Transitions Online, Arms Control Today, Belarus Digest, among other media. Her personal website is http://www.charnysh.net/.

  • Valeria Salamanca: In Her Own Words

    Valeria Salamanca: In Her Own Words

    Tell us a little about your journey to your current position at Tri-Valley Cares? What drove you to commit to nuclear issues?

    Well, to be honest, I stumbled upon nuclear issues. I knew that I was drawn to the world of nonprofits and activism, but I hadn’t chosen a specific issue.

    A family friend had been involved with Tri-Valley CAREs for a few years and knew they were looking for someone to help with outreach in the Latino community, which is very prevalent in the Central Valley. I had just graduated from college with a degree in marketing and had moved back home to Tracy. I was looking for part-time work so it turned out to be perfect timing!

    I didn’t know much about nuclear issues beforehand, but once I became a part of Tri-Valley CAREs, I couldn’t believe the amount of information kept from the public eye. I had lived in Tracy for over 15 years, yet my family didn’t know that we live less than 10 miles from an explosive testing facility conducting toxic bomb blasts used to support nuclear weapon development, a.k.a. Livermore Lab’s Site 300. My community deserves to know if they are subject to toxic air at the hands of DOE-Livermore Lab. The lack of information and resources to the subjected communities is why I will always support this issue.

    As a younger woman in the field of nuclear abolition, how have you seen gender impact your work? Have you had any female mentors along your professional journey thus far?

    The work we do at Tri-Valley CAREs is powered by the female anti-nuclear activist badass, Marylia Kelley. She is the backbone of our organization and I have had the honor to work directly with her on a regular basis. I don’t know how she does it, but she will use every last drop of energy until the job gets done. Being able to see someone like her with so much passion for nuclear issues has definitely made me raise my standards. She has the greatest attention to detail and knack for effectiveness and clarity. I even see myself implementing lessons I learned from working with her outside of the office. I’m proud to say that I’ve had the privilege to collaborate, create and execute projects that have and will result in victories for peace and justice.

    Also, I didn’t realize until just now that most of the community Ieaders in the Central Valley I have collaborated with have all been women. I guess that indicates positive leadership trends!

    As the ‘bilingual outreach specialist’, can you tell us how you view your role connecting the work of Tri-Valley Cares with youth and Latinx communities? Why is this role so important?

    According to 2016 census data, Tracy is 39.4% Latino/Hispanic descent, and that number is even higher in the surrounding communities. I’m sure in a couple of years it will be half of Tracy’s population. Livermore Lab does not translate a single document that is supposed to be available to the public. That is an environmental injustice. As the bilingual outreach specialist, I fill that role by translating material for the Spanish-speaking population. This eliminates the marginalization of these communities created by the Lab. These communities should not and will not be excluded.

    In regard to the youth outreach, I was able to continue our annual tradition of the Youth Video Contest. This was started by Tri-Valley CAREs to engage the youth by having them learn about local and national issues with the nuclear weapons complex and allowing them to win a cash prize!

    This role’s importance became very clear to me last week when 80+ community members attended a Public Hearing in Tracy for Site 300’s Bigger Bomb Blasts. As people were filing in, I noticed several familiar faces that I met at previous meetings in the community and as a guest speaker at other club meetings. Until that event, I had always thought of our Executive Director, Marylia, as the face of Tri-Valley CAREs. It wasn’t until last week that I realized in the Central Valley, I was the face of Tri-Valley CAREs and issues against Site 300. These individuals care about the environment and their communities’ health regardless, but a personal relationship is what pushes them to do more. I can’t take credit for the work our staff and volunteers do, but I now have a deeper understanding of the value of this role.

    What barriers do you face in your work as you seek to engage new communities in the work of Tri-Valley Cares?

    Some of the main barriers I came across involve different perspectives on nuclear weapons development and testing. The stronger opinions that were in opposition to our presence came from those who worked at or knew someone who worked at Livermore Lab. Others believed the activities conducted by the lab were justified because it was established before the immense population growth in the Central Valley. Importantly, however, I found that I could reason with some of the folks who were initially supportive of nuclear weapons development. I was able to demonstrate that we could disagree on some levels but  could still agree on others. Having that dialog is the first step to overcoming differences.

    How does your identity as a younger Latinx woman impact your outreach work? Do you feel this helps or adds barriers to your work?

    This may sound weird, but I honestly forget that these are defining points of my identity. So I don’t always realize their impact. However, when I do reflect on it, I notice that I represent change to some communities. To the Latino community, I sense pride when they see a young woman that looks like them and can speak Spanish if needed. To the environmental community, I feel that I represent progress. I guess it just depends what group I’m talking to. Sometimes I feel that my age inhibits my credibility, but that’s when I’m able to refer to the Tri-Valley CAREs team. I can speak to the organization’s great range of experience and knowledge and that goes a long way to overcoming any possible barriers.

    What professional achievement are you most proud of thus far?

    I’ll refer back to a previous answer. I am most proud of the attendance and involvement from the public at the recent Public Hearing in Tracy. It was literally a reflection of all the work we’d done these past couple of months. Not only were there members of the Central Valley Community that I had recently spoken to, but I felt a personal connection to so many people. I almost couldn’t focus for a big part of the hearing because I would see someone I knew, and we’d wave or hug. It was such a great feeling!

    What are the top professional goals you have for yourself within the next 3, 5, or even 10 years?

    I do hope to be a part of Tri-Valley CAREs for the long-term, whether it be as a board member, volunteer or donor. This role has allowed me to learn so much, not only about environmental injustices, but also about the power of grassroots efforts.

    Valeria (Val) Salamanca served as the Bilingual Outreach Specialist at Tri-Valley Cares, an organization whose mission is to promote peace, justice and a healthy environment. Originally from Tracy, CA, Val grew up in a community located less than 10 miles from Livermore Lab Site 300, a testing facility linked to nuclear weapons manufacturing. As the organization’s Bilingual Outreach Specialist, Salamanca ensured that information about Livermore and other nuclear-related developments was readily available to all residents. As a member of the Latinx community, Val offers translation and outreach to the Spanish-speaking population within Tracy (currently nearly 40% of the city’s residents). She also focuses her attention on reaching, engaging and collaborating with other young people so that future generations are aware of the nuclear threat and feel empowered to take leadership roles on this issue.

  • Judith Lipton | In Her Own Words

    Judith Lipton | In Her Own Words

    How has your background in medicine, evolutionary biology and science shaped your worldview?
    My family subscribed to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from my early childhood. We lived in Hyde Park, Chicago, near the University of Chicago where my parents taught, and also near the first nuclear reactor at Stagg Field. My parents were both psychiatrists, and my father (Morris Lipton, MD/PhD) taught me how to write molecular structures on dinner table napkins before I was 8. He was someone who loved science, with almost religious fervor, and I was raised knowing chemistry and physics from childhood. I played Go with Marshall Nirenberg in the 1950s. He won the Nobel Prize in 1968 for discovering the DNA triplets. I did research on serotonin receptors and LSD at Yale (before LSD was made illegal). I was a chemistry major at Reed College, but I enjoyed quantum physics and held a license to operate the nuclear reactor at Reed. As I grew up, I maintained a commitment to science, tinctured by zoophilia, love of animals. As the Cold War became increasingly ominous, “our friend the atom” didn’t look so friendly. I was raised in perpetual fear of nuclear war in the context of scientific literacy.

    What is the salience of gender in discussions and negotiations related to peace and nuclear disarmament?
    I have co-authored with my husband, David Barash, four books about sex: Making Sense of Sex: The Biology of Male-Female Differences (1998); The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (2001); Strange Bedfellows: the Surprising Connection between Sex, Evolution and Monogamy (2009) and How Women Got Their Curves and Other Just-So Stories (2009). Based on my knowledge of the biology of sex differences, I would have to say that the differences are more political than biological. There is no doubt that in general, critters (like people) that make XY chromosomes, or a large number of small gametes like sperm, are more violent than critters who make XX chromosomes, encased in a small number of large gametes like eggs. Reproductive success depends on whether you are male or female. XX females have a virtual certainty of making as many babies as they choose, while XY critters may not prevail. If you are an elephant seal male, your chances of being a father could be zero, while if you are female you will likely get pregnant every season. This differential reproductive success creates a tendency for males to be more competitive with one another. Females compete as well, for social success (like “catty undermining”) or access to rich males. However, in general, males tend to be larger, more aggressive, and much more violent than females.

    Whether this matters at all in discussions of peace and nuclear disarmament, I don’t know. I think Missile Envy, and phallic images of missiles are overrated. I don’t think peace depends on taking the toys away from the boys. Everyone loses in nuclear war. You or your family cannot maximize your reproductive success or be fruitful and multiply if there is a nuclear war.

    I don’t know if there is any good data to the effect that males have more “psychic numbing” than females. However, as I suggested in The Caveman and the Bomb (1985, McGraw-Hill), insofar as women – unlike men – are guaranteed relatedness to their children and therefore appear to be more maternally inclined than men are paternal, it is possible that we would all benefit from less patriotism and more matriotism.

    Female leaders such as Helen Caldicott and Beatrice Fihn have made enormous contributions to peace, but other females such as Phyllis Schlafly helped to create the US right wing, with its sexism and nationalism. Females can be as brainwashed as males. Hopefully, with access to information, economic equality, and reproductive rights, females should be as capable of doing the nuclear math as males. Nobody wins a nuclear war.

    Can you point to a particular experience or person that has most influenced your recent book, Strength Through Peace (2018, Oxford University Press)?
    There was no one particular experience or person. My husband and I were living in Costa Rica, and I was intensely happy there. Then I read Nicholas Kristoff’s article about Costa Rica in the New York Times, 2010. Kristoff’s first sentence is “Hmmm. You think it’s a coincidence? Costa Rica is one of the very few countries to have abolished its army, and it’s also arguably the happiest nation on earth.”  David and I went on a long intellectual journey trying to find out whether indeed Costa Rica is the happiest nation on earth, and concluded that happiness is elusive and not easily quantified. We gave up on happiness. What we did find is that Costa Rica is perhaps the most successful nation on earth with a moderate GDP, a modest economy, and only 4.8 million people in a country the size of West Virginia. Nicoya, a part of Guanacaste, where we lived, is a Blue Zone, a place where people, especially men, live much longer than average. Costa Rica has universal healthcare, universal access to education, and low birth mortality. We couldn’t put our fingers on happiness, but we could understand health and literacy, and the big correlation is: Costa Rica has abolished its military! They have not spent a colón on the military since 1948.

    In general, my life changed in 1980, when Helen Caldicott came to Seattle and stayed with me for 5 days while she did approximately 30 talks, interviews, and meetings She transformed me. She is my mentor and role model.

    How do you see the relevance of psychological studies playing out in international relations? Do you think these kinds of studies can affect decisions related to nuclear weapons?
    I’m not sure whether academic psychology or psychiatry has much to do with international relations. There have been important psychologists and psychiatrists whose work is pertinent to international history. Robert J. Lifton’s lifelong studies of evil, from Hiroshima to Nazi doctors, has been of ongoing, incalculable benefit. He coined the term “psychic numbing,” as well as “exterminism,” and he dilated upon nuclearism. Eric Fromm’s studies of evil, especially The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, is important, as is Hannah Arendt’s work on the origins of totalitarianism. Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, and Jerome Frank’s book Sanity and Survival in the Nuclear Age are very important. The problem is, who reads these authors now?  Who cares about nuclearism?

    One very important area of contribution and collaboration between psychologists, and psychiatrists pertaining to international relations is in game theory. Daniel Ellsberg notes that the theory of deterrence was derived at Harvard from the work of Thomas Schelling, an economist. For decades the Games of Prisoner’s Dilemma and Chicken have dominated nuclear scheming.  The problem is that those games do not include provisions for psychosis, evil, and sociopathy. The mental health fields could contribute to debunking deterrence by explaining the deep fallibility of human rationality.

    I am more impressed by Masha Gessen and Jill Lepore, historians who write for the New Yorker, than any contemporary psychologists. I find Stephen Pinker’s optimism nauseating. Robert Sapolsky’s work on stress is quite wonderful – but he is a contemporary evolutionary biologist.

    When I think of which people helped most to form my worldview, the list would contain Albert Camus, a philosopher (The Plague and The Myth of Sisyphus); Thomas Merton, a monk (A devout meditation on Adolf Eichmann) and Paul Robeson, an opera singer and athlete. Tom Lehrer, the composer and singer, and Bertolt Brecht, The Three Penny Opera. The psychologists Karen Pryor (Don’t Shoot the Dog) and horseman, Philippe Karl, have shaped my approach to training both animals and people.

    Recently Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist at Yale, who along with Robert J. Lifton have edited a book and promoted the use of the 25th amendment to remove Donald Trump from office. Forensic psychiatrists and psychologists who work on the issue of dangerousness and involuntary commitment have discussed Trump’s apparent mental status and unfitness for duty. They are stepping up to the plate, using their professional knowledge to try to forestall catastrophe.

    Other than that, I don’t think contemporary academic psychology has much except common sense to offer international relations: there is no way that 9 countries in the north of the planet should be able to destroy the life on earth. Not as groups or individuals.

    It is a ridiculous power imbalance. As Weird Al Yankovic puts it, in Happy Birthday: “It doesn’t take a military genius to see that we’ll all be crispy critters after World War 3.”

    What has been one of the most controversial discoveries in your research?
    Probably the most controversial finding in our work had to do with sex, not directly with nuclear weapons. But I would say this: There is no instinct, no “hard wiring” for war. There are indeed normal mammalian instincts for sex, aggression, territoriality, competition and cooperation. There are multiple examples in animal behavior of deception and cheating. People are perfectly good mammals, with one intriguing feature: we can override the whisperings within. We don’t have visible heat cycles that make us want to copulate like crazy like cats, dogs, and horses, We can make choices. When we are angry, we can practice mindfulness. We have a huge capacity for patience and deliberation, if we learn to use our frontal lobes. We don’t have to lie, cheat, and scheme. The take home message is that while violence or aggression may be natural, nuclear war is not. But given human propensities, we had best get rid of the damn things.

    If you could leave our readers with one insight, whether in connection with health, relations, peace, sexuality, choice etc., what would you like to say?
    Look around you at this very moment. Where are you? What do you treasure? The scenery?  The features of a building where you sit or stand or see? Creatures, great and small, near and far. Your friends, relatives, children, grandchildren, Your food. Your body, with its breaths and heartbeats? Your future? That of others?

    Now try to imagine nothingness. Extinction. Everything totally gone forever. We are trying to save life on earth. There is nothing more important.

    Dr. Judith Eve Lipton is a renowned psychiatrist, author and blogger who practiced psychopharmacology and psychosomatic medicine for 30 years. She, along with her husband, David Barash, has co-authored 8 books about war, sex, human nature and nuclear weapons. She is passionate about animals, peace, and the prevention of nuclear war and believes, “There is no way that nine countries in the north of the planet should be able to destroy the life on earth. Not as groups or individuals. It is a ridiculous power imbalance.”

  • Helen Caldicott | In Her Own Words

    Helen Caldicott | In Her Own Words

    What got you started on the path to being a nuclear weapons abolitionist?

    It began back when I was in my teens and read Neville Shute’s novel, On the Beach. It was about a nuclear holocaust that was set in Melbourne. At the end of the book, it was the end of the human race. That’s when I lost my psychological virginity – instead of being a teenager looking forward to the future and smelling the orange blossoms, I was from then on acutely aware that the world could end.

    Then I entered medical school at age 17 and learned about radiation, genetics and biology. At that time, Russia and America were testing weapons in the atmosphere, polluting the northern hemisphere with radioactive fallout and I couldn’t for the life of me, as a young female medical student, understand what on earth these men were doing. Still to this day, I’m very aware that life on Earth could end any day.

    When you were in Santa Barbara a few years ago to give the Foundation’s Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, you mentioned Ronald Reagan. Given the current circumstances, I’m wondering if you care to comment on Trump?

    You know it’s bad when you go to bed and wake up to something even worse. He should be removed from office—physically picked up and removed. But no one’s got the guts to stand up to him. I’m worried because there should be a huge revolution in America and people should be waking up and saying we want our children and descendants to survive and experience the beauty of life on Earth – or do we not care? We need people who will stand up and take on the powers with absolute morality and fearsome will.

    How do you think we can get today’s youth more engaged in the nuclear abolition movement, specifically in the U.S.?

    The problem is that it goes back to what Jefferson said: an informed democracy will behave in a responsible fashion. America is totally uninformed and all the young kids are on social media. They haven’t even talked to each other so they’re not informed, they’re not educated about what has happened to the planet and it’s very terrifying.

    What worries you most about the world today?                                             

    We’re at a point now where we can’t be too radical. We’re the microbes that infect the earth and we either save it or we don’t. We’re heading towards annihilation with global warming and nuclear war and if you read what the corporations in America are doing, the military-industrial complex, selling weapons all over the world, and lots of other countries are into weaponization, too. I’ve never really said this before publicly, but as a physician, analyzing the data as we do with our patients, and taking everything into account to work out a prognostication, I’d say it’s grim.               

    But you must see some hope?

    Really, the golden key to the future of survival is the women. We’re 52% of the world’s population. If we all rose up and said, Look you blokes, you’ve had your chance. Now we’re taking over because you’re heading us towards annihilation. That’s the golden key to survival, but most women don’t even know what’s going on. We need that ferociousness where the lion has to protect her cubs. It’s certainly inherent in every woman.

    But how do we reach the average woman who is mostly consumed with just getting by, putting food on the table and gas in the car?

    You’ve got to do it on a mass basis. The only way to do it is through mass media; it’s the only way. We’ve got to educate, engage and inform women so that they cast aside their apathy. It starts with a hash tag, a like, a re-tweet. And the media is forced to pay attention. Then and only then, will the ferociousness of the lion rise up to protect the world.

    And finally, after a lifetime devoted to saving the planet, how do you spend your valuable time these days?

    I’m 80 years old and I was going to write another book, “Why Men Kill and Why Women Let Them” and then I decided instead to immerse myself in the beauty of nature – the very thing I’ve always struggled to save.

    When Helen Caldicott was a teenager, she read a book that would change her life. It was entitled On the Beach. Since then, Dr. Caldicott has devoted herself to educating the public about the medical hazards of the Nuclear Age and the changes in behavior necessary to prevent human and environmental devastation. She has awakened the world to the importance of reaching nuclear zero and to the need for organized action if we are to ensure a safe future for our children and grandchildren. Dr. Caldicott, a physician and former Harvard University professor of pediatrics, has written seven books, co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility, founded Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament, and is the President of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear Free Future. She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling – himself a two-time Nobel Laureate. The Smithsonian has named her one of the most influential women of the 20th Century.

  • Bonnie Jenkins | In Her Own Words

    Bonnie Jenkins | In Her Own Words

    Tell us about your professional journey working on nuclear issues.

    I got started in this field in Washington D.C. while working as a Presidential Management Fellow. I’d received my Master’s in Public Administration and my Juris Doctorate degree. It was then that a mentor at the Pentagon in the International Law office asked me to a meeting where he was giving legal advice on strategic arms reduction.

    It was my first exposure to anything about weapons of mass destruction and I was fascinated. I’d heard that if you wanted to work on arms control and nonproliferation for a U.S. delegation, you had to go to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or ACDA.

    So I joined ACDA and began working with a delegation that was negotiating a conventional weapons treaty. There weren’t a lot of women on that delegation and there certainly were not a lot of women of color. I was the only one in a substantive position in a room with more than 20 countries negotiating the treaty.

    During my years at ACDA, I received my Master’s in International and Comparative Law. When I left ACDA, I worked on a few congressional commissions before returning to school to get my Ph.D. at the University of Virginia. After completing my dissertation, I joined the Ford Foundation and was there between 2005 and 2009. It was in January 2009 that I received a call to meet with then Senator Clinton who offered me a job as an Ambassador.

    You have led delegations to Nuclear Security Summits and you were the U.S. Representative to the G7 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Mass Destruction. What was it like leading delegations and maneuvering in male-dominated international spaces like the Nuclear Security Summits?

    When I started as an Ambassador in 2009, (it was a new position called Coordinator of Threat Reduction Programs that carried the level of Ambassador), there were a number of women experts that Secretary Clinton had brought into the field of WMD within the State Department. There is still more work to be done in this arena and the field is still very lacking in people of color. Unfortunately, when I left government in January 2017, there weren’t as many women represented in U.S. leadership roles on issues of WMD as when I arrived in 2009.

    As far as how I maneuvered, I didn’t have a specific strategy. I just went to work every day and did my thing. I recognized the situation, but it wasn’t always on my mind. There were certainly times when I would feel it more than others. Generally, if you’re the different one in the room, you’re going to wonder about what you say and whether you’re making sense. You’re likely to second-guess yourself more than if you’re a person from the dominant culture or you’re a man in the room. I think men will say things and not worry if it makes sense or if they embarrass themselves – they just keep moving. Women tend to hesitate more before speaking and question whether they’re making sense. That kind of stuff just happens when you’re different, but you deal with it and keep going.

    Many times, I made myself worry more than I needed to. I finally realized that I was worried about things that nobody else was even considering. I carried this burden of, Oh my God – I said something five hours ago, and I’m still not sure if I made the right statement. You realize how much society has made women and people of color feel that we’re not as good and we’re not as competent, even when we clearly are.

    How have you seen gender and/or race impact the conversation or rhetoric used in formal talks such as chemical, biological and nuclear negotiations?

    I wrote a blog focused on diversifying the voices and perspectives of nuclear nonproliferation. Interestingly, I received push back from someone saying, “This doesn’t really matter. All that really matters is that you have certain positions that you take.” It totally passed by the fact that there may be perspectives that could be reflected within policy that we still have yet to understand because we’ve never had significant voices of people of color or women in policy development. We don’t know if we might have taken a different position on things or adopted a different policy. Even if the end result is the same, the path may differ, resulting in better or different kinds of relationships with countries afterwards. I say this because I think people can hide behind the fact that nuclear is a ‘hard security issue’ and say that diverse perspectives don’t matter, but I don’t know if we’ve ever had a real chance to see them.

    With President Trump’s handling of the North Korea situation, from the very beginning it was very much a masculine approach. In terms of the rhetoric – the things that were said, the way they were said – it was like two young boys attacking each other. This was a clear indication of a process that was not productive and only stopped when they started acting more mature. The process might have been different had there been women involved.

    Having said that, what do you see as the biggest barriers to having more women engaged in these issues?

    Well I think it’s having a gender lens. I’ve gone to events in Washington and was pleased to see many young women there from think-tanks, research institutions, and NGOs. Not so much from government. I think the biggest barrier will be whether that can be translated into women moving up the ranks, staying in the field and at the table as they mature in this field. This relies on women staying engaged, but a high percentage of women at events will likely not stay. This is partly because they may not be interested, or they may have children and face challenges to get back in the field. Then there’s the other side – will the established culture be one that makes women feel comfortable and one where they can make a difference? Will there be opportunities for them? Is it going to remain a field where the predominant white male culture ensures that it stays that way? During the Obama Administration, particularly the first four years, you saw a lot of women (“a lot” is relative) but now you see that progress moving backwards.

    Certainly, you’re picking up that torch, with the Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS), the organization you founded in December 2017. Why did you start WCAPS and what makes it so unique and important?

    I’m thrilled to finally be able to do this work. There is such a need for hearing the voices of women of color in areas of peace and security, including nonproliferation issues. There’s a lot I can do to support that.

    WCAPS is focusing on three areas: empowering young women – that’s the first thing. The second thing is strengthening the voices of women already in the field and giving them more exposure. The third is addressing the culture that limits the involvement of women, especially women of color.

    Our mentorship program is a big part of empowering younger women. We also do podcasts and spotlights on women of color to give voice to women who are in this field. This also helps to empower young women because they get to see other women of color who are actually doing the work and are successful. These are women they would otherwise not hear about.

    To address the culture, I host events with NGOs focused on really getting out there and letting other people, such as white men, see that there are women who work in this field and should be valued. Those events work to bring this discussion to NGOs that are still generally identified as “White Male Yale.” I hosted a conversation looking at women of color and peace and security and asking how can we redefine national security. I’m pleased with the way some think tanks and NGOs are making room for these discussions. It’s critical to bring these conversations to those who may not typically be having them.

    How might your professional journey have been different, or had doors opened for you a bit more easily, if you had been able to have women of color as your mentors?

    I’m a pretty driven person. Though I didn’t have the luxury of having women of color in my field that I could look up to, there were women of color in other fields that I saw as role models. There were also white men who were role models. I’ve been told by young people of color, not just women, that they shy away from this field because they don’t see people like themselves. They ask, “Why am I doing this when I should be working on civil rights?” or “I should be working on reducing police brutality.” There are things that might be closer to home for women and for people of color. If they’re committing to this field, it’s important to see that there are others in it who look like them.

    That’s one of the reasons why one-third of my work is dedicated to helping people see and hear from women who are working on these issues. Folks can visit WCAP’s “Pioneers” page and read about the first African American or first Asian American Ambassador. This way, young women who I can’t reach directly can still be inspired.

    There are many women who speak about applying a gender lens to nuclear issues or peace and security. Do you employ a gender and/or a race lens to your work?

    I have two answers to that. I’m African-American and I’m also a woman. I grew up in the Bronx without much money and so I have a very different background from many people I work with. I am very conscious of who I am. When I approach an issue, I bring my identity with me. I don’t consciously say I’m going to apply a gender lens or a person of color lens because that’s naturally how I see things. I think that term applies more to people who need to actively incorporate that lens. For me, “gender lens” means that you’re looking at something and saying, how would this impact women differently than men. Or maybe suggesting we need to bring women in to include perspectives that are not just male.

    You’ve been very intentional about working with youth. How do you view your role in supporting younger women looking to become meaningful change makers?

    I feel very fortunate to have gotten where I am from where I started. I know that, particularly in my area of work, there aren’t a lot of women of color. There are, however, many women of color out there doing great things, but they’re just not getting attention. I feel it’s my responsibility to be a role model to young people, and to bring to the attention of young people, other women doing great work out there that go unseen. The mentorship program is very important, especially because I hear from women all the time that they don’t see people like themselves reflected professionally. For me it’s all about that.

    We’re at such a speed change in U.S. policy regarding how we treat other countries, how we’re perceived by other countries and what we’re doing domestically. We’re making a lot of mistakes that are going to take a long time to fix. In addition to wanting to be a role model, I feel it’s our responsibility, as older Americans, to do what we can to make the right environment for the next generations. America is still great, but we have a lot of things we need to fix. Moving forward, we can be more realistic about who we really are as a country and stop trying to believe we’re so perfect. It’s okay not to have all the answers and its okay not to be the best in the world. You’re never going to fix yourself if you don’t know what your problems are.

    This administration has done the exact opposite of what they said they would do. They were talking about “Let’s make America great again” and I think what they’ve shown is that America has always been great in some ways and has never been great in others. However, some people aren’t ready to hear it.

    What were your keys to success?

    Being open to new opportunities, being persistent, not giving up, believing in myself, being respectful to others, and being open but intentional at the same time. I’ve always said to myself, what is the next thing I want to achieve and how will I get there? Many things have happened that I wasn’t anticipating that have turned out great, but even then, I put myself in a position where things can happen, and I can see the unexpected as opportunities. Balancing the need to have direction with the need to be open to opportunities, and to be able to take those opportunities without being afraid to do so – that is key.

    Bonnie Jenkins brings a world of experience to the field of Peace and Security. She is an expert on arms control and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. She served for nine years as legal adviser to U.S. ambassadors and delegations negotiating arms control and nonproliferation treaties during her time as a legal adviser in the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. She has been a legal adviser on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, among others. She has also served as U.S. legal adviser on relevant treaty implementing bodies, such as the CTBT Organization (CTBTO), and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). She also has over 20 years of military experience, serving as an Air Force Reserves Officer before joining the Naval Reserves, rising to the role of Lieutenant Commander and serving her last post at the U.S. Central Command.

    Today Bonnie Jenkins is beginning a new venture as the Founder and President of the Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS). WCAPS aims to inspire a new generation of diverse women leaders committed to having a role and a prominent voice in the field of Peace and Security – a voice that is needed now more than ever.

  • Christine Ahn | In Her Own Words

    Christine Ahn | In Her Own Words

    Tell us about your journey as an activist and Korean expert.

    I was born in South Korea and immigrated to the U.S. when I was three. Like many immigrants, I think the process of becoming American is the process of not knowing where you come from. Before heading to Georgetown for my graduate degree, I spent time working at the intersection of anti-globalization, environmental, social and racial justice issues. I had lived in developing countries where I could see the impact of U.S. policies. A few years later, while taking a course at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, Robert Gallucci came to speak about his time as Chief U.S. Negotiator with North Korea during the 1994 nuclear crisis under the Clinton Administration. He spoke about a proposed U.S. first strike on Yongbyon meant to destroy North Korea’s nuclear reactors. I sat there astounded – I had no idea the U.S. was so close to war with North Korea. He then shared the remarkable story of how Jimmy Carter went to North Korea with a CNN camera crew and interrupted Clinton’s plans to go to war, ultimately leading to the agreed upon framework which froze North Korea’s nuclear program for over a decade.

    Diving into research on North Korea, I wrote a paper that semester that led me to an NPR interview with Peter Hayes of the Nautilus Institute. He had a quixotic project that analyzed North Korea’s famine in the 1990s. His analysis was that the famine was due to an energy crisis rather than a food crisis. Having a background in sustainable agriculture and the industrialized agricultural system, this analysis made a lot sense to me. That was my gateway into studying, re-learning and understanding North Korea.

    Through connecting with Korean Americans, I got a fuller perspective of Korea that is not present in mainstream media or literature. I saw a movement of activists that were part of the pro-democracy movement in South Korea; activists that had been to North Korea, while it’s illegal to do so; activists that were part of the leading edge of so many movements and with a variety of goals. I continue to learn from those who have been involved in struggle, whether it’s advancing the democracy of South Korea, challenging the U.S. militarization of the Korean Peninsula or seeking greater human rights and peace for North Korea.

    I think it’s a very special role that Koreans in the diaspora play – we have the fortunate view of having been to North Korea and having family in North Korea and/or South Korea, but we also have access to a bird’s eye view – being in the U.S., within the ‘belly of the beast’. I developed a critical education about U.S. foreign policy while working in other countries and seeing the impact of U.S. foreign policies on those countries.

    You focus specifically on the inclusion of women within the Korean peace movement. Why is this so critical for you?

    The work I’m doing now is the marriage of two areas of work that I’ve dedicated my life to. I’m the youngest of 10 children – 9 girls and 1 boy. My mother was the breadwinner of the family and kept the family together. Despite being born in Korea’s period of Japanese colonial rule, only receiving a sixth-grade education, living through the war and dictatorship, my mother believed so much in advancing opportunities for her children, especially girls under a very patriarchal society. And so, from a very early age, I developed an awareness of the power of women.

    I spent most of my career working in women’s organizations, such as the Women of Color Resource Center in Oakland and the Global Fund for Women. By day, I was working in amazing organizations advancing the rights and power of women and gender equality; by night, I was a Korean peace activist. I really felt the importance for there to be Korean voices, not just white men voices, but voices that provide a historical perspective and reveal things we don’t often hear about such as division of families and the humanitarian impact of this war and sanctions. I wanted to put a human face to the repression in South Korea, in addition to North Korea, as a result of the unresolved war.

    In 2009 I was working at the Global Fund for Women, managing a project called, “Women Dismantling Militarism”. The project raised money to support grassroots women working in conflict zones. We had just screened the film “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” about Leymah Gbowee’s peace activism in Liberia. It was so inspiring, and it planted a seed in me. A few nights after, I woke up in the middle of the night and turned on my computer to see an article about the flooding of a river called the Imjin River, which flows through the heart of the Korean Peninsula. There are songs and poems written about this river and a famous poem asks, ‘how come birds can fly over the Imjin River, but I can’t see my loved one?’ North Korea had lifted the floodgates without telling South Korea as all communication between the North and South had shut down and now the river had flooded into South Korea, killing about a dozen people –all because one guy can’t pick up the phone and tell the other guy, ‘we have to lift the floodgates because of food shortages here in North Korea, and if we don’t lift the dam then it’s going to flood our farms in the North, and people are going to die here’ – but they just couldn’t do that. I went back to sleep but I was so angry…and that’s when I had this dream…

    …I was waiting in the river. It was right before dawn, there was this glow of light and people were coming down the river – it was such a beautiful scene of family reunions. I wanted to bypass it all and find out where the source of light was coming from. I kept going up the river, and that’s when I came to the source – a circle of women. They were stirring something and whatever it was, they poured it into vessels that became the light that floated on the river. I woke up at that moment, and I said to my husband, “Oh-my-god, I know who will end the war. Women will end the war.” And then I thought, but how are we going to do that? I’m not on the Korean Peninsula, I’m in the U.S. and the U.S. is the largest obstacle to a peace treaty between North Korea and the U.S. And that dream, about the power of women, is never far from my mind.

    How have women been involved historically in the conflict on the Korean Peninsula – either from the peninsula or in the diaspora?

    I got a fellowship at the University of Michigan to study the efforts of North and South Korean women who were building peace across the DMZ – the most fortified border in the world. I was looking at how these women were going to communicate with each other – it’s illegal on both sides. While studying these efforts I interviewed women in South Korea and found that the first meeting of North and South Korean women was convened in 1989 by a Japanese woman of the Diet Parliament who had heard the plea of a South woman who said, “At the root of this arms race is the unresolved Korean War. We need to meet with North Korean women to figure out how to stop this madness.” This woman parliamentarian convened the first meeting in Tokyo in 1991.

    When I learned of this, I said, “There is a role. There is a role for women outside of the Korean Peninsula to play, especially in times of impasse.” In 2015, when we did the DMZ walk, there was an impasse. There was no dialogue between North and South Korea. In fact, the end of the sunshine era was really in 2008 when Lee Myung-bak came into power – it was a precipitous fall off a cliff that dropped to no exchanges between the two countries.

    Looking back now in South Korean history, I think about the news about “Park Geun-Hye” and the ‘security defense council’ within the Ministry of Defense, which had basically mobilized armored tanks to intentionally quash the candlelight revolution. Park Geun-hye had created a list of 10,000 artists, filmmakers and writers calling them “pro-north” and blacklisting them so that they couldn’t get any government funding. I landed on that list for a travel ban into South Korea. Looking back, that was such a dark period for South Korea, for inter-Korean relations and for U.S./DPRK relations. The ability for Women Cross DMZ to cross the DMZ at such a time was quite extraordinary, and it’s still remarkable to me that we were able to do it.

    What do you think made it all possible?

    It was because of the women that we were able to do it – the little ways in which we work. Gloria Steinem was a big factor. I called her “The Super” because she had the keys to open many doors and was a huge help. It took an extraordinary behind-the-scenes effort by so many women. That’s who made it all possible.

    Do you think it’s critical that women play a unique role in the peace process between the U.S and North Korea?

    Women bring up things that most men aren’t talking about. We talk about how to achieve true reconciliation, what kind of healing is needed and how trauma gets passed down generationally. There’s a whole world of things that we want to bring to the table. Women have been socialized to nurture and provide for our families today. For example, I am a feminist and yet I still do most of the nurturing of my daughter. I feel there are ways in which we’ve been socialized and thus think of things that maybe men don’t.

    There are also times when women just do the work, which means less masculine energy. Right now, there’s an important conversation that needs to be had because when we say ‘just women need to be at the table’, that’s not true. I don’t want another Hillary Clinton hawkish approach to resolving conflict just to prove that we are masculine and tough with foreign policy and national security. We need to lift the conversation and ask, “what does national security really mean?” How do we define security and move it away from the current understanding of national security under the patriarchal white male gaze? We need to question if we are defending ourselves, or are we arming ourselves in perpetual preparation for war? We need a true feminist vision of national security.

    The good news is that understanding is building and it’s based on research and the experiences of women’s peace groups that are mobilizing and active in peace processes and peace agreements. In 2017, the Women, Peace and Security Act, introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), passed with bipartisan support in both the U.S. House and Senate, stating that women should be involved in conflict prevention. So there is an understanding of what should happen – it just hasn’t been implemented yet.

    So that’s our challenge right now. We can hear all the niceties about [UN] 1325 and women’s inclusion in peace processes, but we’re still not included. Our theme for women crisis DMZ right now is, ‘From peace walk to peace talk’. We need to gain access to meaningful dialogue and it’s still a huge uphill battle because North Korea controls whether, who and how we have interaction. And the U.S. government has banned U.S. citizens from traveling to North Korea unless you get a very special exemption.

    It’s 2018, nearly 70 years after the Korean War and still everything is so controlled by the governments. We have to keep pushing for women to have a seat at the table. That is the only way we’ll truly gain the understanding to finally resolve this conflict. Our goal is a peace treaty, but we also need to understand and actually hear each other. We need to come together with ideas about what the peace treaty should entail, and what will lead to true reconciliation and true people-to-people understanding.

    How do you feel patriarchy has painted the conflict within the Korean Peninsula and the U.S.?

    We’re dealing with the most patriarchal governments right now. The Trump administration doesn’t even try! You look at cabinet meetings – it’s all white men. Constantly we see these South Korean delegations – all men. Strangely enough, some of the leading figures from the North Korean side have been women, but still, we’re dealing with three patriarchal regimes in the U.S., South Korea and North Korea.

    What gives you hope for women’s involvement?

    It seems impenetrable right now, but I think we have a strategy to lean on. Some of the countries that are strong allies of the U.S. and South Korea – Canada, Norway, Sweden and of course the U.N – have feminists board policies to help push for women’s inclusion.

    And there are some positive developments. The mere fact that Women Cross DMZ was in South Korea in May, calling for women’s inclusion Is one such development. Since then, the South Korean Women’s Peace Movement announced a Women’s Peace Network of national organizations to promote the inter-Korean peace process and women’s inclusion. Additionally, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs formed a Gender Advisory Committee to help define and commit to the Women, Peace and Security agenda.  Twenty-one women were identified for that committee, including many of the women with whom we have been working closely.

    There is some progress and we have yet to see what the North Koreans are proposing, but we are still going to march forward. We’re going to propose several meetings – Northeast Asia Women, Peace and Security Roundtables. We want to ensure the inclusion of women from the entire region because so much of progress in the Korean Peninsula is very much tied to progress in other nearby countries such as China, Russia, Japan and Mongolia. These conversations can offer a women-centered vision of what a peace treaty could and should look like while pressing for women’s inclusion. We’re in a new day – last year we were hoping to prevent a war and all of a sudden, we are in this new moment. Still, the process is fragile. We can’t put all of our hope in the ‘goodwill’ of our leaders to see through an end to this war or denuclearization.

    It’s going to take a wider and more diverse process and we now have evidence that shows that when women are included, it leads to a peace agreement and a far more durable one. We have the ingenuity, the creativity and the wisdom. Now it’s time to roll up our sleeves and figure out how to intersect with the official process to demand a seat at the table.

    What’s next for you?

    Women Cross DMZ is launching a campaign for a woman-led peace treaty. We received $2 million from the NoVo fund’s global competition called “The Radical Hope Fund”. We were 1 of 17 awarded for a 2020 women-led peace treaty campaign. Women Cross DMZ, the Nobel Women’s Initiative and WILPF are launching this campaign together, targeting the U.S., the UN and other key countries.

    Christine Ahn, a Korean-American now living in Hawaii, is a true expert on the conflict facing the Korean Peninsula. Spending her career committed to human rights and social justice, Ahn has addressed the United Nations, South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission, as well as the U.S. Congress. She is the founder and coordinator of Women Cross DMZ, the organization which serves as a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War, reunite families, and ensure women’s leadership in peace building. With Women Cross DMZ, Ahn led an international delegation of women to march alongside 10,000 Korean women as they crossed the 38th parallel from North Korea to South Korea in 2015. She also co-founded the Korea Policy Institute, the National Campaign to End the Korean War and the Korea Peace Network. Her interviews and Op Eds have appeared in a wide variety of media sources including Democracy Now!, CNN, BBC, the New York Times, and many others. She continues to work to ensure that women are involved in the North Korean – U.S. peace building process and she is committed to achieving sustainable peace for the Korean peninsula that alleviates some of the devastating threats of nuclear war.

  • Cynthia Lazaroff | In Her Own Words

    Cynthia Lazaroff | In Her Own Words

    Can you tell us a bit about the professional journey you took in engaging with U.S.- Russian relations?

    I was awakened to the gravity of the nuclear danger by my mentor and professor Richard Falk as an undergraduate at Princeton and became deeply concerned about the risk of a nuclear war between the US and USSR. I had already fallen in love with the Russian language and was so taken by Russian literature, I wanted to go and meet the “enemy” for myself and made my first trip to Russia in 1978 at the height of the Cold War as an exchange student at Leningrad State University.

    I made dear friends. They were not the enemy stereotype in U.S. media. They were people whom I found delightful, whom I came to love. Compared to life in the U.S., they were living in relative poverty, yet had a rich spiritual life. They showed me hospitality and generosity that touched me to the core.

    I would leave my dorm and, with as much secrecy as I could, go to stay with my friends, a Russian family who lived in a tiny room in a communal apartment. To the fullest extent possible, I wanted to experience what life was like for a Soviet.  I wanted all recognizable signs of being an American to disappear. I wore their clothes, the valenki (woolen felt boots) that they gave me. I literally put myself in their shoes.

    At that time, my Russian friends met with me at great personal risk, as recurrent unofficial meetings with foreigners almost certainly meant a visit from the KGB.  My friends paid a price.

    It was at this moment that I realized I had to try to do something, I didn’t know how or what or where it would lead me, I just knew that I had to try to do something about this insane disconnect between my experience with my Russian friends and the thousands of nuclear weapons our two countries had pointed at each other.

    What drove you to start the U.S.-USSR Youth Exchange Program? What was your ultimate goal, and do you feel you achieved it?

    I returned to Russia for the second time in 1980 to teach American culture in Soviet schools. My Soviet high school students demonstrated an unbridled enthusiasm, dedication, passion and curiosity for learning about the U.S. and what life was like for their American counterparts. I could see that enemy stereotypes had not yet poisoned their minds. One day I showed my students a film about teenagers surviving together in the wilderness on an Outward Bound program. They told me they dreamed of meeting American teenagers, of joining them in the wilderness, and one day, maybe even traveling to the United States.  At the time, such contacts were essentially forbidden, and foreign travel was reserved exclusively for officials, diplomats, top athletes or cultural figures. I promised my students I would do all I could to make this possible. They inspired me to start the first US-USSR Youth Exchange Program.

    It took five years to fulfill my students’ dream, to win the trust of Soviet officials to allow Soviet and American youth to join together for a wilderness exchange experience, the first joint ascent of Mt. Elbrus, Europe’s highest peak, 18,481’ located in the Caucasus Mountains of the former USSR.

    I read in an article that when you were beginning this program people responded by saying you looked like “…a cute little girl, and it’s hard to be taken seriously in this field as a woman…” Have you been able to overcome this? 

    When I started out in the early 1980s, I was in my early twenties, and there were very few women working in the field of U.S.-Russian relations. Having been a student at Princeton, which had only recently begun admitting women, I was accustomed to being the only woman in the room much of the time, so this was not an issue for me.

    But there were ingrained prejudices that women were not to be taken seriously in male-dominated professions – both in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.

    I was blessed to find extraordinary mentors in both countries who did not harbor these prejudices, took my work seriously, advised and supported me in carrying the work forward.

    That said, I developed an exchange program with one of the most male-dominated institutions in the former USSR, the Soviet Sports Committee, where all of my counterparts were men who initially refused to see me and ignored all of my proposals for a very long time, not just because I was a woman, but also because I was an American, a citizen of a country that was the stated enemy of the Soviet Union.

    It took five years of trust-building, knocking again and again on doors that were closed. It took persistence and patience, finding points of human connection,and the support of mentors and colleagues – men and women in both countries – to break through the barriers in the Sports Committee and finally become partners.

    Spending much of your career engaged with global diplomacy, particularly in the shadows of a possible nuclear war, what was your experience as a woman in this field?

    In the 1980s, the ever present awareness of the existential threat of nuclear war inspired millions of people around the world to join together to oppose the arms race and act to reduce the risk of nuclear war. So I found myself part of a global movement of men and women, youth and children that transcended gender, racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, socio-economic and partisan divides, one that unified into what mediation expert William Ury calls the “Third Side,” a coalition that acts to serve the shared interests of the larger community. We all had one overarching common goal in mind – preventing a nuclear war.

    Today, the public has largely forgotten the existential threat of nuclear war. My prayer is that there is global awakening to the escalating nuclear danger today, and that a new Third Side for the 21st century emerges that once again brings people from all backgrounds and all walks of life together to act now to reduce the threat of nuclear war, to work to create a more peaceful world and eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

    How, if at all, do you feel being a woman has informed or shaped the work you did (or the perspective your took) in this field?  

    I am a mother. I have carried in my own body a fragile new life. I have nurtured a new soul on this Earth. I have a visceral connection to future generations. Having lived through the Hawaii false ballistic missile alert, I have confronted in real time, my own death, the death of my children, the possibility of the end of human civilization, the mass extinction of life on Earth. I have been shaken to the core of my being. I would like that to happen with those who are engaged in nuclear war planning, abstract discussions of megadeaths, preparations for omnicide.

    Have you ever felt undermined or silenced in professional settings purely because you’re a woman? How did you respond?

    I came of age at a time when I didn’t know a single woman, including myself, who didn’t experience some form of condescending, derisive comments, sexual innuendo or harassment in the workplace, in public and private meetings with men. In these situations, I worked to steer such conversations and experiences back to the work at hand. I looked for and found support among men who did not want to be a part of a culture that perpetuated dominance and violence over others. Ultimately, it does not matter whether you are a man or woman, what matters is whether you embrace nonviolence, whether you have respect for the dignity of each individual human being.

    What are the most important takeaways you want people to leave with after reading your piece, “Dawn of a New Armageddon”?

    My prayer is that we all receive the wake-up call, the gift that I received during the 38 minutes of the false ballistic missile alert in Hawaii. My prayer is that without having to go through it themselves, in real time, people who read the story will come to know what it’s like to feel that you’re about to be hit by a nuclear missile, what’s it like to feel that the world as we know it might be coming to an end, that everyone we know and love, everything we cherish on this Earth could be vaporized in an instant. These are unacceptable stakes.  It is omnicidal insanity to accept the nuclear world we live in. I pray that we act, as we did in the 1980s, to compel our politicians to change our nuclear policy, first to take the ten immediate steps to reduce the nuclear risk as outlined in The Nuclear Playbook on our website. I see these 10 steps as achievable, critical steps we can take now with the ultimate aim of  creating a more peaceful world where we can eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

    How has your experience on January 13th impacted your life and/or professional goals?

    A near-death experience, they say, changes you forever. For me and hundreds of thousands of others in Hawaii, living through the 38 minutes when we felt we were about to be hit by a nuclear missile was a deeply personal near-death experience. I felt the cell-splitting terror. We all felt the fear and it led us to reach out. We all called those dearest to say, “I love you.” The experience of feeling that you are about to be hit by a nuclear missile makes it absolutely clear what is most precious. I want us to be motivated not by fear but by love. To act from our love for this precious life, for the gift of this beautiful Earth, for the joy of sitting with a child who is asking you, “Momma, where did I come from?”

    I do not want to live in a world where I have to try to explain to my daughter why we have nuclear weapons. Just try explaining MAD to a child.  They look at you like you are trying to play a trick on them. They know that it is insane. They don’t have the sophistication to delude themselves. The 38 minutes brought me back to that child-like joy. I am here!  I am still here! I am in this exquisite world. I want to take care of my children, of this Earth. I see the vibrant colors of life anew, the gift of this life. May the stories of all of us who went through the 38 minutes be heard, be taken to heart, be felt in the gut, and compel us to act now.

    Those 38 minutes woke me up. I realized that we are in great danger and we have to do something about it – that responsibility as a mother, as a human being, is with me. And it will never leave me – until we eliminate this threat.  That’s why I’ve joined forces with many others and started a campaign at nuclearwakeupcall.earth.

    Bio

    Cynthia Lazaroff is the founder of www.nuclearwakeupcall.earth.  She is a U.S.-Russian relations expert and an award-winning documentary filmmaker.  Cynthia is engaged in Track II and Track 1.5 diplomacy and mediation efforts with Russia and has founded groundbreaking U.S.-Russian exchange initiatives since the early 1980s.  She has spent the past year interviewing experts and officials in the U.S. and Russia on nuclear dangers.

    Cynthia has developed numerous film and television projects related to Russia and nuclear issues including Mother Russia for HBO, The Cuban Missile Crisis for NBC, and the award-winning mini-series Hiroshima, broadcast by Showtime on the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb.  Her producing credits include the prize-winning Challenge of the Caucasus, featuring the first joint ascent of Mount Elbrus, Europe’s highest peak, by Soviet and American youth whom she co-led to the summit.

    Cynthia’s expertise on nuclear dangers made for a singular experience on January 13, 2018 when she received warning on her cell phone of a ballistic missile headed to her home in Hawaii.  While the alert turned out to be false, it was a wake-up call for Cynthia, who is determined to share her harrowing, 38 minute near-death experience that day in hopes that it will inspire others to wake up and take action to reduce the escalating and existential nuclear danger that threatens the future of all life on Earth. Her article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists about this experience is at this link.

  • Saving Humanity from the Fiery Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, Through the Power of Women

    In my youth, I wrote stories about the possible destruction of the beautiful planet on which I lived, deceiving readers into thinking that I was an embittered old man.  I leaped into the future as far as I could see, and I saw creatures coming from other worlds with the weapons to destroy the world around me.  I was haunted by the screams of my father, who had to kill other men in hand-to-hand combat in the global war that raged from 1914 to 1918.

    In 1943, I was drafted into the American army to stop Hitler and his murderous followers from conquering Europe.  I was trained to shoot and stab other men, just as my father had been trained in his generation.  I was selected as a war correspondent to write about the atrocities suffered by other men in bloody battles where they had lost their arms and legs, and sometimes their brains and testicles.  I lived through glorious days after I came home unwounded, but I had to face the grim realities created by scientists who had acted on the wild possibilities I had envisioned in my science fiction stories.

    In 1932, I had published a story titled “Red April 1965” about a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union—and I was confronted early in April of 1965 by a madman who rushed into my office screaming about the imminent occurrence of such a war on the very date when I had predicted it.  The war did not happen then, but I still had a deep fear that atomic bombs would destroy our civilization.

    In 1948, I wrote speeches for President Harry Truman, who had used nuclear weapons on Japan to save the lives of thousands of civilians and end the Second World War as quickly as possible.  After his action, the world embarked on a nuclear arms race, which has continued for many years.  Life on earth is under the fiery threat of annihilation.

    In 1982, David Krieger asked me to join him in founding the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization, which has become a voice of conscience for the community, the nation, and the world.  Its message is that nuclear weapons threaten the future of all life on our planet, and that it is the responsibility of all of us, working together, to end this threat forever.  Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and they must be abolished by us.  Peace in a world free of nuclear weapons is everyone’s birthright.  It is the greatest challenge of our time to restore that birthright to our children and all future generations.

    In 1983, I was invited to go to Moscow by the Council of Citizens, a nonpartisan organization based in New York.  In Russia, I was given an opportunity to speak to 77 Soviet leaders in the Kremlin.  I urged them to take the initiative in getting rid of nuclear weapons.  I said that I hoped my own government—the U.S. government—would do that, but I was afraid that American leaders would not do it.

    The Soviets listened to me, and my speech was quoted in Pravda.  I was interviewed by Radio Moscow, but the Soviets told me that if they discarded their nuclear weapons, they would be regarded as “weak” in many parts of the world.  I felt that my mission to Moscow did not have the positive results I had hoped for.

    Now, I believe that a worldwide initiative by women has the best possibilities of ending the nuclear threat.  Courageous women are making a difference in all nations; in fact, many countries have elected women to the highest offices in their governments.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has many notable women on its board of directors, its council of advisors, its associates, and staff.  Its development and progress is largely due to the generosity and activities of these women.

    The Foundation’s financial survival was largely dependent on the gifts of Ethel Wells, a Santa Barbara resident.  In the 1980s, the Foundation coordinated an International Week for Science and Peace.  Mrs. Wells reasoned that scientists were at the heart of creating constructive or destructive technologies, so she contributed $50,000 for a prize for the best proposal for a scientific step forward.  The winning proposal came from the Hungarian Engineers for Peace and called for the formation of an International Network of Engineers for Peace.  A short time later, the engineers joined with a group of like-minded scientists and established the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.  That organization continues to thrive with a large list of supporters.

    In 1995, friends of Barbara Mandigo Kelly, my wife, established an annual series of awards through the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit.  These awards are offered to people in three categories—adults, young persons 13 to 18 years old, and youth 12 and under.  Thousands of poems have been received from people of all ages, from all over the world.  The prize-winning poems have been published in book form, in anthologies and on the Foundation’s website.

    For many years, the Foundation offered prizes, financed by Gladys Swackhamer, awarded for essays by high school students all over the world, who shared their thoughts on nuclear policy and peace issues.  Many of these essays have been published in magazines in many places, and the authors include many young women from a wide variety of backgrounds.

    The necessity for cooperative action was highlighted recently in an article published in the Wall Street Journal signed by four men who have served in high positions—George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Senator Sam Nunn.  They expressed the belief that “We have arrived a dangerous tipping point in the nuclear era, and we advocate a strategy for improving American security and global security….We are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe.”  [Emphasis added.]

    I think the time has come for the formation of a Women’s Task Force for Nuclear Peace, composed of leaders of women’s organizations with millions of members around the world.  The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is prepared to work in cooperation with these organizations to awaken humanity to the urgent need of preserving life on earth.

  • Sin Las Mujeres, No Hay Movimiento. “Without the Women, There is no Movement.”

    For many years, women had played supporting roles within movements for nonviolence. They cared for the children and supported their men as they worked on the front lines and garnered the headlines, making public waves. They photocopied and typed behind closed doors, allowing their contributions to remain hidden and, sometimes, allowing men to take credit for their work.

    The farm worker movement is a notable exception to this paradigm.

    The late activist Cesar Chavez recognized the power of women in action when a group of them set up a prayer service and vigil at a ranch a vigil that lasted two months. The workers had been sanctioned by a judge against picketing at a farm. The prayer service began with eight women at noon; it grew to 50 by nightfall.

    Every day, the women maintained a nonviolent presence at the gates to the farm, singing spirituals, praying and signing authorization cards.

    A strong contingent of women activists thrives at Ventura’s PictSweet mushroom farm. They play key roles in policy and decision-making. They are organized, and they are proud. And their stories shape the future of the movement as their co-workers and children see the essential importance of their input in a shared victory.

    Within the first week of leaving her native town in Jalisco, Mexico in 1978, Lilia Orozco began her career at PictSweet. She sacrificed from the start, leaving her two children, ages 3 and 5, in the care of her mother while she joined her husband in Ventura.

    The history behind her strength runs deep.

    “In my town in Jalisco,” she said, ”the women wanted on president and the men wanted another. And the strength of the women won. We got our president elected.”

    When she and her husband separated, her single motherhood dictated her involvement in the movement. Whereas other women might have taken a quieter role in the struggle, Lilia stood at the forefront. When her sons joined her in the United States in 1980, she started taking them to the picket lines.

    “I made the struggle fit into my life,” she said. “You have to play so many roles mother, father, cook, doctor an dkeep up with their education, the housework, everything.”

    For Lilia, there was no question as to whether motherhood or work was more important. They were, and are, equal in her eyes.

    “We have to defend ourselves and our jobs,” she said. “If we give up, other scabs would have taken our jobs.”

    As the sole provider for her children, Lilia realized that if they were to survive in the United States, she had to continue to fight.

    When Lilia began working, the PictSweet farm was owned by West Foods. In 1981, just a few years after beginning her commitment to mushroom agriculture, the workers went on strike to renew their contract with West. The strike served to maintain a comprehensive benefits package that provided for the families’ medical needs.

    Lilia tells a story of better times at PictSweet, when dental and vision insurance were part of the benefits package, and when the medical plan included $5 prescription costs.

    For the past 23 years, Lilia has been working in the “bubble” department, cleaning the mushroom beds after they have been picked. It took her only two months on the job to find her place in the United Farm Workers union, and she has been a vocal supporter of labor representation ever since. This struggle helped her to find her voice and to stand up not only for her rights but also for the rights of others.

    “When a woman is by herself,” she said, “everyone wants to take advantage of her. You have to stand up for yourself. If I know that I’m right, I have to fight back.” Her conclusion: No one can do it for you.

    Lilia’s message to the union’s Farm Worker Committee “gets desperate” when she feels she has important information for them. Her sentiments are similar to those of a female Georgetown law student, who said, “Women want answers more quickly because we’re more often the victims, anda victims don’t want to wait for solutions.”

    She capitalizes on the value of women in the movement by talking to everyone at the mushroom plant. “More people will talk to women than men,” she says. “And when the men at work are talking badly about women, I remind them that their wives and mothers are women. When they talk badly about the union, I press the issue and ask what they really mean…what is behind their fear.”

    “At this time,” she said, “the struggle is more balanced. Women are playing more equal roles and are stronger, making more of a difference this time around.” She referred to the most recent struggle to gain a contract with PictSweet the movement was invigorated in 2000 with a massive boycott strategy.

    Alicia Torres’ experience is similar to Lilia’s: She came here from Mexico to be with her husband, bringing one child with her and leaving three behind with her family in Michoacan. For the past 15 years, she has been the breadwinner in her family because a brain disease has left her husband incapacitated and unable to work.

    In 1989, Alicia immigrated to the United States as a migrant worker, first picking strawberries and grapes in Lodi, then packing vegetables for Boscotich Farms. She lost her job there when she asked for some time off to raise her kids.

    “I signed papers with the forewoman for an arrangement that she would hire me back during the onion season,” Alicia sighed. “She said she’d call me for a job.” As onion season began in 2000, Alicia watched as many other women were hired back. She eventually was told she would not get her job as a packer back. After this disappointing incident, she found work at PictSweet.

    Alicia works in the brown mushrooms department, picking portabellas. Union organizing and contract efforts had begun by the time she arrived, and she decided to support the union because of her previous experience.

    As the union representative for the brown mushroom department, she says she has no fear: “How can we improve our conditions if not together?” she said. “The Union gives women many opportunities to succeed. God made women strong. Even when we’re sick, we work and struggle. Women work through the hard times!”

    She advises her daughters to be strong women as well, to “get a good education, to prepare themselves and stand up for themselves.”

    She also stresses cooperation: “Women could not run this campaign alone,” she explained. “We give the men courage. We are decisive when they say ‘it will happen later,’ we say ‘it will happen now!”

    The daughters of Jesus Torres, notable in the United Farm Workers campaign to win a contract with PictSweet, know the ropes of organizing already. Just 8 and 9 years old, they attend regular meetings with their father at the United Farm Workers office, often until late at night.

    “We come here,” they said, “because we want to hear more about the union. We have marched in Sacramento and Los Angeles because we want a contract for the workers,” the girls exclaim. “…and when we miss school because of the struggle, we bring souvenirs to our teachers, like pins and buttons.”

    These girls see for themselves how they want to contribute in society. Judit wants to be a teacher because “it’s fun telling kids how to learn.” At a young age, she is realizing that education also takes place outside the classroom.

    Lourdes wants to be an artist: “I want to draw the sea, sun, grass, sky…people.”

    The girls nod their heads enthusedly when asked if they’re proud of their dad.

    “It helps him for us to be here,” they said with a giggle. “He has his family supporting him.”

    Perhaps one day, the Torres girls will have children of their own supporting their place at the forefront of the struggle for workers’ rights.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.