OMNI
HIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI REMEMBRANCE 2024
AUGUST 6 AND 9 (AUGUST 4 EVENT, Part II)
August 2, 2024
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and
Ecology
What’s at Stake? Threat of nuclear war.
David Krieger: The starting point for ending the omnicidal threat of nuclear
weapons is the recognition that the threat is real and pervasive and requires
action. Each of us is threatened. All we love and hold dear is threatened. The
future is threatened. We are called upon to end our complacency and respond to
this threat by demanding that our leaders develop a clear pathway to the total
elimination of nuclear weapons and to the elimination of war as a means of
resolving conflicts. These are critical steps on the path to a nonkilling world
(Krieger, 2013, p. 247).
PROGRAM
Theme: What did we learn?
Sunday August 4, 2024, Omni Center for Peace
6:00 p.m. meal
prepared by MayDay Kitchen chefs
6:30 – Program -- Kelly MC
Opening Song – Kelly and Donna
Welcome, Founder Dick Bennett
Speaker – Art Hobson – Topic: Update on the
UN-sponsored International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
(UNTPNW).
Speaker – Ted Swedenburg -- Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Israel’s nuclear weapons,
and the Gaza war.
Poems– Gerry Sloan: “Miyuki Bridge, Hiroshima.” “A New Kind of Anthem.”
Speaker
-- Marcina Langrine, Marshallese Education Initiative.
Topic: From Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the hydrogen bomb tests in the Marshall
Islands, to life in the USA.
Music – Kelly and Donna.
Reading the names –
Karen Takemoto.
Close with silence in
honor of the dead.
8:00 – Closing
gratitudes – Gladys.
TEXTS
CONTENTS for ACTION
Scott Ritter.
“Voting Against Nuclear War.”
US rejection of nuclear arms control and an original idea for empowering
our vote: Operation Dawn.
Back from the Brink. “From Trinity to Nagasaki.” Contacting your state and local officials about
the UN Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Union of Concerned Scientists. “Commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki” and
the importance of making Paper Cranes.
Roland Joseph.
“Nonkilling Political Science, Human Rights, and the Threat Posed
by Nuclear Weapons.”
International Connections: NAPF in Geneva for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
Scott Ritter. “Voting Against Nuclear War." Consortium
News (7-29-24).
“No matter who wins
among the two major candidates in November, the United States is on track for a
major existential crisis with Russia in Europe sometime in 2026.” To read the entire essay: Read here...
Tags:
Analysis, Campaign
2024, Commentary, History, Militarism, Nuclear
Weapons, Politics, Russia, U.S., WMD
Redwing_Dakota.jpeg (1483×1177) (consortiumnews.com)
Nuclear weapon test Dakota, June 26, 1956. (U.S. Dept. of Energy/Wikimedia Commons)
. . .The point to be made here is that no matter what anyone says
about 2024, while the future direction of American politics, and the societal
issues thus manifested, will be decided in November, the existential fate of
the United States is not on the line.
Neither is the fate of “American democracy.”
All Existence Is at Stake
The 2024 presidential race, however, does directly impact the
existential survival of the United States, the American people, and indeed the
entire world, but not because of its outcome.
The harsh reality is that regardless of who among the two major
candidates wins in November, American policy vis-à-vis Russia, especially when
it comes to nuclear posture and arms control, is hard-wired to achieve the same
result.
And it is this result that seals the fate of all humanity unless a
way can be found to prompt a critical re-think of the underlying policies that
produce the anticipated outcome.
A future Harris administration is on track to continue a policy
which commits to the strategic defeat of Russia, the lowering of the threshold
for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, the termination of the last remaining
arms control treaty (New START) in February 2026, and the re-deployment of intermediate-range
missiles into Europe, also in 2026.
Trump, meanwhile, has proffered rhetoric which has led many to
believe he would end the conflict in Ukraine, and thereby open the door for
better relations with Russia.
The‘PerfectCall’
But this policy is
predicated on the concept of the “perfect phone call” between Trump and Russian
President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader accedes to American-dictated
terms regarding Ukraine which would fall far short of Russia’s stated goals.
Trump has made it clear that if Putin fails to bend the knee on
Ukraine, he will then flood Ukraine with weapons —basically the Biden policy of
strategically defeating the Russians on steroids. It was Trump who pulled
out of the INF treaty in 2019, and as such put in motion the policy
direction which has U.S. INF weapons returning to Europe in 2026.
And Trump is not a fan of arms control treaties, so the notion
that he would save New START or replace it with a new treaty vehicle is
mooted by reality.
No matter who wins among the two major candidates in November, the
United States is on track for a major existential crisis with Russia in Europe
sometime in 2026. The re-introduction of INF-capable systems by the U.S.
will trigger a similar deployment by Russia of nuclear-capable INF systems
targeting Europe.
Back in the 1980’s, the deployment of INF systems by the
U.S. and Russia had created an inherently destabilizing situation where one
mistake could have set off a nuclear war.
The experience of Able Archer ’83, a NATO command and
control exercise that took place in the fall of 1983, bears witness to this
reality. The Soviets interpreted the exercise as being a cover for a nuclear
first-strike by NATO and put its nuclear forces on high alert.
There was no room for error — one miscalculation
or misjudgment could have led to a Soviet decision to pre-empt what it believed
to be an imminent NATO nuclear attack, thereby triggering a full-scale nuclear
war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
The INF treaty, signed in 1987, removed these destabilizing weapons from Europe.
But now that treaty is no more, and the weapons that brought Europe and the
world to the brink of destruction in the 1980’s are returning to a European
continent where notions of peaceful coexistence with Russia have been replaced
with rhetoric promoting the inevitability of conflict.
When one combines the existence of a policy objective (the
strategic defeat of Russia) which, when coupled with a policy of supporting a
Ukrainian victory over Russia predicated on Ukraine regaining physical control
over Crimea and the four territories of Novorossiya (New
Russia — Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk), one already has a recipe
for disaster.
This policy, if successful, would automatically trigger a Russian nuclear
response, since doctrinally nuclear weapons would be used to respond to any
non-nuclear scenario where the existential survival of Russia is at
stake. (The loss of Crimea and the New Territories is like the United
States losing Texas, California, or New York — a literal existential
situation.)
Add to this the end of arms control as we know it come February
2026, when the New START treaty expires. The Biden administration
has declared that it will seek to add new nuclear weapons “without limitation”
once the New START caps on deployed weapons expires — the literal definition of
an arms race out of control.
One can only imagine that Russia would be compelled to match this
rearmament activity.
INFs Again in Europe
And finally, the recent agreement by the U.S. and Germany to
redeploy intermediate-range missiles on European soil in 2026, and Russia’s
decision to match this action by building and deploying its own
intermediate-range missiles, recreates the very situational instability which
threatened regional and world security back in the 1980’s.
When one examines these factors in their aggregate, the
inescapable conclusion is that Europe will be faced with an existential crisis
which could come to a head as early as the summer of 2026.
The potential for the use of nuclear weapons, either by
design or accident, is real, creating a situation that exceeds the Cuban
Missile Crisis in terms of the risk of a nuclear war by an order of magnitude
or more.
While a future nuclear conflict would very likely start in Europe,
it will be virtually impossible to contain the use of nuclear weapons on the
European continent. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russian soil, or the
territory of its ally, Belarus, would trigger a general Russian nuclear
response which would lead to a general, global-killing nuclear war.
The question Americans confront today is what to do about this
existential threat to their very survival.
The answer put forward here is to empower your vote in the
coming presidential election by tying it not to a person or party, but rather a
policy.
In short, empower your vote by pledging it to the candidate who
will commit to prioritizing peace over war, and who pledges to make the
prevention of nuclear war, not the promotion of nuclear weapons, the
cornerstone of his or her national security policy.
Don’t give your vote away by committing to a candidate at this
early stage — when you do this, you no longer matter, as the candidates will
simply turn their attention to those uncommitted voters in an effort to win
them over.
Make the candidates earn your vote by linking it to a policy
posture that reflects your core values.
And this election, your core value should be exclusively centered
on promoting peace and preventing nuclear war.
Such a policy posture would be built upon four basic pillars.
1. Immediately end the current declaratory policy of the United
States which articulates the strategic defeat of Russia as a primary U.S.
objective and replace it with a policy statement which makes peaceful
coexistence with Russia the strategic goal of U.S. foreign and national
security policy.
Such a policy redirection would include, by necessity, the goal of
rethinking European security frameworks which respect the legitimate national
security concerns of Russia and Europe, and would incorporate the necessity of
a neutral Ukraine.
2. A freeze on the re-deployment of INF-capable weapons systems
into Europe, matched by a Russian agreement not to re-introduce INF-capable
weapons into its arsenal, with the goal of turning this freeze into a formal
agreement that would be finalized in treaty form.
3. A commitment to engage with Russia on the negotiation and
implementation of a new strategic arms control treaty which seeks equitable
cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of both nations, a reduction in the
number of nuclear weapons each side can retain in storage, and which
incorporates limits on ballistic missile defense.
4. A general commitment to work with Russia to pursue
verifiable and sustainable nuclear arms reduction globally using multi-lateral
negotiations.
I will be working with Gerald Celente, Judge Andrew Napolitano,
Garland Nixon, Wilmur Leon, Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil, Jeff Norman, Danny
Haiphong, and many others to put together an event, Operation DAWN, on
September 28, 2024.
The goal of this event will be to get as many American citizens as
possible to tie their vote to the policy posture spelled out above, and then to
leverage these commitments in a way that compels all candidates for the
presidency to articulate policies that meet this criterion.
In doing so, the voter would be fighting for a chance to save
democracy by making his or her vote count, save America and the world by
creating the possibility to avert nuclear conflict, all by making the
candidates for presidency earn their vote, as opposed to simply giving it away.
Operation DAWN is still in the preliminary planning stages. More
details will be published here as the planning progresses.
Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps
intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms
control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq
overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of
Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.
The views expressed are solely those of the
author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Tags: Able Archer Abraham Linclon Andrew Jackson Cuban Missile
Crisis Donald Trump INF Treaty John Quincy Adams Kamala Harris New START Operation DAWN Scott Ritter
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
Dear Dick,
This week, Back from the Brink and several
local and state elected officials will be emailing over 400 mayors, city
councilors, county commissioners and state senators/representatives asking
them to speak out in conjunction with the upcoming 79th anniversary of the U.S.
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
Our message to them is simple — please speak
out on behalf of your community to honor the hundreds of thousands who died or
were injured and demand that Washington decision-makers get serious about
preventing nuclear war and pursuing a world free of nuclear weapons. And say
loud and clear “never again” and that our voices, our communities matter.
Can you take a few minutes right now to reach
out to your local and state elected officials to ask them to take one of
the following simple actions on August 6th and 9th — most of which you can also
do yourself?
Issue a Statement/Proclamation
Communities around the world have historically
used the Hiroshima and Nagasaki anniversaries to express solidarity with
communities and individuals who have been harmed by nuclear weapons. Your
elected officials can use or modify this sample proclamation or develop their own. Your mayor or your city/town’s chief
executive could also issue a statement calling for a moment of silence, prayer
or reflection, or the tolling of church bells, as part of the annual Nuclear Prayer Day held on August 6th. (The live community event is
accessible via Zoom at 12 PM ET.)
Post on Social Media
All elected officials regularly communicate
via Facebook, X, Instagram and other social media platforms. Ask your elected
representatives, including your members of Congress, to post messages on their
platforms on August 6th and 9th. Here’s a sample post:
What happened 79 years ago to the people of
#Hiroshima and #Nagasaki can never happen again, to anyone, anywhere. Nuclear
weapons ARE a local issue and my community’s voice matters. It’s time for
Washington decision-makers to get serious about preventing #nuclearwar and
pursuing a world free of #nuclearweapons @BackfromBrink
If you’re on social media, take a moment in
the days leading up to the anniversaries to post a similar message, and tag
your officials AND Back from the Brink.
Share a Crane for the Future
You or your elected officials can fold a paper
crane as a symbol of hope and peace as part of the annual Cranes for our Future initiative sponsored by our friends at the Nuclear
Threat Initiative.
These are uncertain times as we face very real
threats to our democracy and look ahead to seriously consequential federal
elections this November. Yet we have a responsibility to act and keep up
this fight to abolish nuclear weapons with humanity’s very existence at risk.
Please know that with your support and activism, Back from the Brink is in this
for the long haul. As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at jeremy@preventnuclearwar.org with your questions, ideas and concerns.
With gratitude,
National BftB Organizing Team
P.S. Back from the Brink needs more funding
and resources to grow the campaign and make progress. Making a modest monthly donation is a great way to support our campaign.
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
on the importance of paper cranes to nuclear war education
Dear James,
August marks one of the most solemn anniversaries in our world's history: the
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) invites you to an online event to commemorate these
devastating events.
Join fellow UCS
activists, Science Network members, and staff as we fold paper cranes to
commemorate the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and heed the call of survivors to work
toward a world free from nuclear weapons.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki Commemoration and Paper Crane Folding
Event Date: Tuesday, August 6 Time: 8:00–9:00 p.m. ET
Location: Zoom
Register for the virtual event today.
This virtual event will
start with a brief presentation on the legacy of the atomic bombings and how
the UCS Global Security Program is working to prevent nuclear war and achieve
justice for those harmed by nuclear weapons. Then we will fold paper cranes
together and share them along with a message of hope for a nuclear weapons free
world.
We will join thousands
around the world sharing paper cranes on social media with the hashtag
#CranesForOurFuture. Why paper cranes? Paper cranes are a symbol
of peace around the world, thanks to the legacy of Sadako Sasaki. After she
was diagnosed with leukemia a decade after the bombing in Hiroshima, she folded
1,000 paper cranes in the hopes that her wish to live would be granted. While
Sadako did not survive, her legacy of paper cranes did, inspiring her
classmates, and then the world, with a message of peace, hope, and resilience. Please register today and we hope to see you on August 6.
Sincerely, Madison Rose,
Global Security Program
Union of Concerned Scientists
P.S.– Can't attend but still want to participate? Check out the Social Media Toolkit from the Cranes for Our
Future Campaign for
more shareable graphics, videos, and messages to amplify with your network.
REFLECTIONS ON A NONKILLING WORLD
TRANSCEND Media Service brings to you its own Peace Journalism
Perspective plus a digest of the week’s relevant News, Analyses,
Papers and Videos — in various languages.
Editorials and
articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted,
disseminated and translated, provided a citation and link to the source, TRANSCEND
Media Service, is included. Please forward our Weekly Digest to your
colleagues and friends. Thank you, enjoy your reading.
Make your pledge for the 2024 TMS budget.
Click on the link fort the List of Supporters:
https://www.transcend.org/tms/list-of-tms-supporters/
Roland Joseph. “Nonkilling Political
Science, Human Rights, and the Threat Posed by Nuclear Weapons.” (A significant, summative essay, virtually
a prospectus for a university course on nonkilling peace education. –Dick)
TRANSCEND
MEMBERS, 29 Jul 2024. – TRANSCEND Media Service
Presented at the Graduate School of Law of the University of
City of Manila, Philippines 29 Jun 2024 –
I want to start
by thanking all the organizers of this session, especially Professor Dr.
Allesandra Fay V. Albarico, for inviting me. I am glad to be part of this panel
and share my critical reflection on the threat posed by the existence of
nuclear weapons to international human rights from a nonkilling political
science perspective. First and foremost, it is important to mention that I
am not an expert in human rights and international law. However, given that my
dissertation focuses on nonkilling political science and nuclear weapons, I
believe that I can explore the response of the nonkilling paradigm to the
threat of killing posed by those weapons to the right to life.
My
intervention has two main points. First, I will briefly define the terms
non-killing, nuclear weapons, and human rights. Second, I will discuss how the
concept of non-killing relates to human rights and how activists and scholars
from these two areas can work together to eliminate the nuclear weapons threat.
Nonkilling Global Society
As
most of you may know, the term nonkilling did not exist in any English
dictionary until the book Nonkilling
Global Political Science (NKGPS) was published by Dr. Glenn D. Paige in
2002. Paige associates this
term with many other concepts, such as nonkilling anthropology, nonkilling
security, nonkilling political science, nonkilling society, etc. He began by
asking a simple question: Is a nonkilling society possible? His answer to this question
is that a non-killing society is possible.
In
trying to define it, Paige mentioned three characteristics of a nonkilling
society. First, it is a society in which there is no killing of humans or
threats of killing; second, it is a society in which there are no weapons
specifically designed to kill humans and no justification for using them; and
third, there are no social conditions that depend on the threat or use of
lethal force for maintenance or change (Paige, 2002; Paige, 1997).
This
definition is not only about the absence of killing. As Dr. Anoop Swarup put
it, Paige’s definition of a nonkilling society encompasses both illusive
nonkilling (negative and non-structural) and affirmative nonkilling (positive
and structural) (Vision of Humanity, n.d.). This does not mean that such a
society is unlimited, undifferentiated, or free of conflict, only that its
structure and processes do not depend on murder (Paige, 2002).
Paige
presents seven grounds to justify his thesis on the possibility of achieving a
nonkilling global society (Paige, 2002, p. 146):
1.Most humans do not kill.
2.Powerful nonkilling potentials reside in the
spiritual heritage of humankind.
3.Science demonstrates and forecasts nonkilling
human capabilities.
4.Transitional nonkilling public policies such
as the abolition of the death penalty and recognition of conscientious
objection to military service have been adopted by even violence-created
nation-states.
5.Various social institutions based upon
nonkilling principles exist that, in combination, already constitute functional
equivalents of nonkilling societies.
6.Roots of nonkilling inspiration and experience
can be discovered in historical traditions throughout the world.
7.Ultimately, the promise of nonkilling
transition rests upon examples of nonkilling individuals, celebrated and
unknown, whose courageous lives testify to its achievability.
Paige,
therefore, raises the concept of causation, which is important when conducting
nonkilling political analysis. Paige emphasizes that every case of killing
requires a causal explanation: wherever it occurs, from homicide to genocide to
atomic annihilation, we must understand the processes of cause and effect
(Paige, 2002). That is, we need to know the causes of killing, the causes of
non-killing, the causes of the transition from killing to nonkilling, and the
characteristics of completely killing-free societies (Paige, 2002).
We
need nonkilling institutions for the process of nonkilling global
transformation. Some of the main institutions proposed to be established for a
nonkilling global transformation could include nonkilling common security,
nonkilling political parties, nonkilling universities, nonkilling training
institutions, etc. (Paige, 2002).
Paige
isn’t just saying we need to eliminate conventional and nuclear weapons. It
does, however, propose non-lethal solutions for a non-lethal global society.
His new paradigm constitutes an important intellectual work with an ethical
foundation capable of tackling most of the existential issues, such as the
threat associated with nukes.
Nuclear Weapons
Let
me tell you a little bit about nuclear weapons. According to the website of
the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “A nuclear weapon is a device that rapidly releases nuclear
energy, either through fission (as in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki) or a combination of fission and fusion (as in a thermonuclear or
hydrogen bomb)” (DeNardi, 2012, para 1). They are weapons of mass destruction
capable of destroying entire cities and causing the deaths of millions of
people. Those nukes have significant long-term effects on the environment and
future generations due to persistent radioactive contamination years after the
explosion (Statista, n.d.).
There
is a difference between a conventional weapon and a nuclear weapon. According
to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Nuclear weapons use fissionable materials
to fuel an explosion, whereas conventional weapons do not. Only a relatively
few radioactive materials are fissionable, such as Plutonium-239 or
Uranium-235” (DeNardi, 2012, para 1). A scientist in the field of nuclear
weapons would tell you more about the functioning of nuclear weapons.
Also,
this website presents the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear
weapons:
Tactical
or non-strategic nuclear weapons are generally characterized by a lower yield
and shorter range than a long-range (strategic) nuclear weapon. Strategic
nuclear weapons are delivered by long-range delivery systems (ICBMs, SLBMS,
long-range bombers) and targeted against strategic assets such as an
adversary’s strategic nuclear weapons arsenals and storage sites, strategic
military bases, strategic weapons production centers, leadership, and
population centers ((DeNardi, 2012, para 2).
There
are now nine states that possess together about 12,121 nuclear weapons, which
include the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India,
Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. According to the Federation of Atomic
Scientists, “Of the world’s approximate 12,121 nuclear warheads, roughly 9,585
are in the military stockpiles for use by missiles, aircraft, ships, and
submarines ” (FAS, 2024, para 5). Of course, this reduction is
significant compared to that of the Cold War, which was around 70,000 nuclear
warheads. However, reducing the number of nuclear warheads does not mean that
the presence of these weapons does not continue to pose a threat to the right
to life. Andrew Greig, a contributor to the book Nonkilling Security and the State, said, “Despite significant progress in
recent years in reducing the stock of nuclear weapons in the world, we are
still at very significant risk of nuclear war” (Greig, 2013, p. 231).
Research
led by some scientists at Rutgers University, cited by Alex Wigglesworth in an
article published in the Los Angeles Times, revealed that the use of less than
3% of the world’s stockpiles in conflict could kill a third of the world’s
population within two years (Wigglesworth, 2022). The same article mentioned
that “In the event of a larger war between the U.S. and Russia, an estimated 5
billion out of 6.7 billion people worldwide would die” (Wigglesworth, 2022,
para 2). In other words, the risk of using those weapons, whether by accident
or by the willingness of nuclear countries, is tangible.
Researchers,
scholars, and activists at the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) are aware of
this phenomenon. The Nonkilling Security and International Relations Research
Committee has published an important book entitled Nonkilling Security and the State, in which a few chapters deal with or mention
the threat of nuclear weapons. Dr. Stephen M. Younger, a leading expert on
nuclear weapons and the former Head of Nuclear Weapons Research and Development
at Los Alamos National Laboratory, forewords this book. Edited by Dr. Joám
Evans Pim, Director of the CGNK, I think it can be a great resource for those
interested in exploring the non-lethal responses to some security challenges
facing humanity, especially the threat of killing associated with nukes. It is
available free of charge on the center’s website.
Dr. David Krieger, a leading figure in the global movement to abolish nuclear
weapons and the founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF),
strongly supports the nonkilling paradigm and nuclear disarmament. In
2010, Dr. Glenn Durland Paige received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s
Distinguished Peace Leadership Award for his commitment to leadership and
nonkilling global society.
David
Krieger, who is also one of the contributors to the book Nonkilling
Security and the State, said, “One bomb could destroy one city. By
implication, a few bombs could destroy countries, and a few dozen bombs could
reduce civilization to ruins” (Krieger, 2013, p. 243). Andrew Greig,
Coordinator of the Non-Lethal Weapons for Peace Campaign and another
contributor to the book Nonkilling Security and the State said:
In
the event of even a minor nuclear conflict, these horrific devices could kill
or injure hundreds of millions of people and cause generations of cultural and
genetic damage. A major nuclear war could wipe the human race off the face of
the earth (Greig, 2013, p. 231).
The
existence of nuclear weapons threatens the right to life and complicates the
work of human rights activists and even nonkilling advocates. Joshua Cooper of
the Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights said, “Ending nuclear weapons is one of
the most important and imminent issues in international human rights advocacy”
(Cooper, 2020).
Human Rights:
The
institutionalization of human rights began in the context of killing,
especially in the context of World War II in 1945, involving more than 50
nations and killing about 85 million military and civilians. As you know, most
of the nations involved in this war met together and decided to create a new
international organization called the United Nations (UN) to prevent the
escalation of another deadly global conflict.
Three
years later, the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
on December 10, 1948, to protect the rights of every individual everywhere
on the planet. The UDHR is a historical step since it was for the first time
that humanity came together and signed a document considering all humans as
being free and equal, regardless of sex, color, religion, language, ethnic
origin, or any other characteristics.
The
UDHR has two covenants: the International Covenant for Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant for Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Those two covenants are commonly referred to
as the International Bill of Human Rights (Flowers, n.d.). The ICCPR
focuses on issues such as the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, and
voting, while the ICESCR focuses on issues such as food, education, health, and
shelter (Flowers, n.d.). I have to focus more on the ICCPR, especially Article
6, which states that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This
right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
life” (ICCPR, n.d.).
Now,
let me tell you a little bit about the human rights treaty bodies. I know you
are familiar with these terms, as most of you are law students. However, it is
important to mention them to make my connection understandable. In fact, there
are ten human rights treaty bodies composed of independent experts of
recognized competence in human rights (OHCHR, n.d.). Some of them include, for
example, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD),
which monitors the implementation of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Human Rights
Committee, which is the body of independent experts that monitors
implementation of the ICCPR (OHCHR, n.d.).
All
ten human rights committees publish “general comments” or “general
recommendations” to better interpret the provisions of their respective human
rights treaties covering different topics. General comments on human
rights often seek to
clarify the reporting duties of State parties with respect to certain
provisions and suggest approaches to implementing treaty provisions (OHCHR,
n.d.).
In
2018, the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the
ICCPR, adopted General Comment 36 of Article 6. Paragraph 66 of this comment
shows that the existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the right to
life. It states that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is incompatible
with the Right to Life and may amount to a crime under international law. Let
me read Paragraph 66, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the ICCPR
published by Alyn Ware on the website of UNfoldZERO:
The
threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons,
which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of
human life on a catastrophic scale, is incompatible with respect for the right
to life and may amount to a crime under international law. States parties must
take all necessary measures to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, including measures to prevent their acquisition by non-state
actors, to refrain from developing, producing, testing, acquiring, stockpiling,
selling, transferring and using them, to destroy existing stockpiles, and to
take adequate measures of protection against accidental use, all in accordance
with their international obligations. They must also respect their
international obligations to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to
achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international
control and to afford adequate reparation to victims whose right to life has
been or is being adversely affected by the testing or use of weapons of mass
destruction, in accordance with principles of international responsibility.
Even
though most of the nuclear countries did not agree with the committee on how
nuclear weapons constitute an existential threat to the right to life, I
believe that this comment is a significant step toward a world free of
killing with nukes. In other words, the legal condemnation of the risks of
killing with those nukes is important to achieve a nonkilling global society
and to fulfill all human rights. But citizens from local to global must
recognize that the threat posed by those weapons to the right to life is real. David
Kreiger said:
Some
officials working in different armies or for governments of nuclear countries
are aware of the phenomenon of direct and indirect killing associated with
nukes. Paige referenced their statements throughout his works on the nonkilling
paradigm. The former commander of all United States nuclear war-fighting
forces, General George Lee Butler, cited by Glenn D. Paige, said, “Nuclear
weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient, and
morally indefensible” (Paige, 2002, p. 136). In other words, those weapons
constitute a threat to international human rights and international
humanitarian law. As Dr Patricia Anne Murphy of the International Philosophers
for Peace put it, “Nuclear weapons are illegal under International Law. This must
be acknowledged and affirmed by each and every current nuclear state. Their
construction, use, or possession should be considered a crime against humanity”
(Murphy, 2020).
General
Comment No. 36 is very important, but I want you to know that there are other
international treaties dealing with the use, proliferation, testing, and the
existence of nuclear weapons. I do not intend to elaborate on this point for
now. But let me tell you that there are three main international treaties
governing the use, proliferation, testing, and the very existence of nuclear
weapons: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT), and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
(NAPF, n.d. para 1).
I
am sure that you know about the TPNW, which entered into force in 2021. This
treaty constitutes a very significant step toward a world free of killing with
nukes and the right to life. It challenges the theory of nuclear deterrence
raised by some scholars to justify the presence of nuclear weapons. Professor
Heinz Gärtner of the International Institute for Peace (IIP) said, “The Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) calls for the elimination of all
nuclear weapons. But even more importantly, it provides an alternative norm to
the deterrence norm, which prepares for the potential use of nuclear weapons”
(Gärtner, 2020). This prohibits States Parties from developing, testing,
producing, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices (NTI, n.d.). Let me read some of the
obligations of the signatories of the TPNW that I found on the website of the
Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI):
Signatories
are barred from transferring or receiving nuclear weapons and other nuclear
explosive devices, control over such weapons, or any assistance with activities
prohibited under the Treaty. States are also prohibited from using or
threatening to use nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. Lastly,
States Parties cannot allow the stationing, installation, or deployment of
nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices in their territory. In
addition to the Treaty’s prohibitions, States Parties are obligated to provide
victim assistance and help with environmental remediation efforts (NTI, n.d.,
Para 7).
How can the nonkilling and human rights advocates come together
to eliminate the threat posed by nuclear weapons?
We
need both human rights and nonkilling advocates. The first plays a fundamental
role in terms of law, while the second seeks to transform the behavior of human
beings in that it helps them discover their capacity not to kill. They must
know that “The vast majority of human beings have not killed and do not kill”
(Paige, 2002, p. 71). Of course, we all have the capacity to kill. As Paige put
it, “Although we are capable of killing, we are not, by nature, compelled to
kill” (Paige, 2002, p. 71). Once we all realize our ability not to kill, we
will take steps to get rid of these destructive weapons.
The
main unambiguous alternative that could call into question the possibility of
killing with nukes is the application of the non-killing model. Andrew Greig, a
contributor to the book Nonkilling Security and the State, said: “There is,
however, an overarching reason for the adoption of nonkilling, and that is that
it could be a major agent in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
in moving us towards their abolition” (Greig, 2013, p. 231).
Aware
of the capacity of the nonkilling paradigm to tackle the risk of nuclear
proliferation, I have been working on establishing a working group on
nonkilling and nuclear abolition since last year to explore new ideas to
address this issue. As a member of the Nonkilling Security and International
Relations Research Committee, I plan to organize webinars with other scholars
from different nonkilling research committees such as Nonkilling Political
Science, Nonkilling Anthropology, Nonkilling Psychology, Nonkilling Science and
Technology, Nonkilling Sociology, Nonkilling Philosophy, Nonkilling History,
Nonkilling Health Sciences, Nonkilling Education, etc. My doctoral research
teaches me that abolishing nuclear weapons requires an interdisciplinary
approach, which, of course, must include the approach of human rights.
We
need to teach the public how the existence of nukes threatens their right to
life! We need to teach them about the nonkilling principles! We will not be
able to convince them about the right to life if we do not provide scientific
evidence of their capacity to overcome the power of killing directly and
indirectly. That’s why nonkilling and human rights advocates, including other
similar fields, must work together to get more people involved, especially
young people, in the movement to eliminate all nuclear warheads. Paige said,
“Nonkilling political science is challenged to engage its resources in
research, training, consultation, and action to support individuals and
organizations that seek the protection and advancement of human rights at every
level” (Paige, 2013, p. 107). In discussing the International Covenant
for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), he added that “The basic text should be
known to every political scientist and global citizen” (Paige, 2002, p. 106).
Yes, we need to tell young people about the right to life and how the existence
of nuclear weapons threatens this right.
We
cannot just leave this responsibility in the hands of those who believe that
the presence of these weapons can prevent nuclear war. No! We must tell
children and young people, including students, the truth about nukes so that
they can make their own decisions to oppose them. Dr. David Krieger
said:
Like
other American children, I learned in school the lesson that the bombs dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were needed to end the war and save the lives of
American soldiers. What I didn’t learn in an American school setting was that
the use of atomic bombs violated the laws of warfare as weapons that were
indiscriminate and caused unnecessary suffering. Nor did I learn that the
victims of the bombs were mostly civilians (Krieger, 2013, p. 243).
Nonkilling peace education is important to transform an individual or a group of
individuals from a killing thinking system to a nonkilling thinking system.
The transition to a nonkilling transformation is not quite difficult since we
are not, by nature, violent and killers. Paige said, “Every political scientist
and each person can be a center for global nonkilling to facilitate the
transition to a nonkilling world” (Paige, 2002, p. 126). This is also
applicable to scientists who create nuclear weapons. An article published by USA
Today mentioned that “Many scientists involved in the Manhattan Project did
not want to build the bomb. They especially did not want it to be used on
people” (Kiernan, 2020, para 1). About 70 of them submitted a petition to the
President of the United States in 1945 not to use the atomic bomb against
Japan. Even if the U.S. President did not listen to them, what they did could
be considered a non-lethal capability. Albert Einstein, one of the scientists
who encouraged the US President to create the bomb, later said, “Had I known
that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have
done nothing” (McEvoy, 2024, para 16).
This
concludes my presentation. Again, thank you to all of you. Let me pass the
microphone to Professor Dr. Allesandra Fay V. Albarico for questions and
comments.
References:
Cooper,
J. (2020). “Ending nuclear weapons is one of the most important & imminent
issues in international human rights advocacy.” In Protect people and
the planet: Appeal for a nuclear weapon free world. Hawai’i Institute for
Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/protect-people-and-the-planet-appeal-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world/quotes/#:~text=Nuclear%20weapons%20anywhere%20and%20in,for%20humanity%20as%20a%20whole
DeNardi,
C. (2012). Fact sheet: The basics of nuclear weapons. Retrieved
from https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-the-basics-of-nuclear-weapons/#:~:text=A%20nuclear%20weapon%20is%20a,a%20thermonuclear%20or%20hydrogen%20bomb
Federation
of Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Status of world nuclear forces.
Retrieved from https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/
Flowers,
N. (n.d.). A short history of human rights. Retrieved from http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-1/short-history.htm
Gärtner,
H. (2020). “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) calls for
the elimination of all nuclear weapons. But even more importantly, it provides
an alternative norm to the deterrence norm which prepares for the potential use
of nuclear weapons.” In Protect people and the planet: Appeal for a
nuclear weapon free world. International Institute for Peace (IIP).
Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/protect-people-and-the-planet-appeal-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world/quotes/#:~text=Nuclear%20weapons%20anywhere%20and%20in,for%20humanity%20as%20a%20whole
International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf
Kiernan,
S. P. (2020). Manhattan Project scientists used their talents to destroy, even
as they fought to save. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/07/manhattan-project-scientists-atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-column/3305404001/
Krieger,
D. (2013). Nuclear weapons and a nonkilling world: The goal is zero. In J. E.
Pim (Ed.), Nonkilling security & the state (pp. 241–255).
Center for Global Nonkilling & Creighton University. Honolulu & Omaha.
McEvoy,
C. (2024). Albert Einstein’s role in the atomic bomb was the “one great mistake
in my life”. Biography. Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/scientists/a44402742/albert-einstein-role-in-the-atomic-bomb
Murphy,
P. A. (2020). “Nuclear weapons are illegal under International Law. This must
be acknowledged and affirmed by each and every current nuclear state. Their
construction, use or possession should be considered a crime against humanity.”
In Protect people and the planet: Appeal for a nuclear weapon free
world. International Philosophers for Peace. Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/protect-people-and-the-planet-appeal-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world/quotes/#:~text=Nuclear%20weapons%20anywhere%20and%20in,for%20humanity%20as%20a%20whole
Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation. (n.d.). International treaties. Waging Peace.
Retrieved from https://www.wagingpeace.org/international-treaties/
Nuclear
Threat Initiative. (n.d.). Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
(TPNW). Retrieved from https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclearweapons/#:~:text=The%20Treaty%20on%20the%20Prohibition%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20(TPNW)%20prohibits,or%20other%20nuclear%20explosive%20devices
Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (n.d.). The human
rights treaty bodies. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies
Paige,
G. D. (1997). “To leap beyond yet nearer bring”: From war to peace to
nonviolence to nonkilling. International Journal of Peace Studies, 2(1),
97–108.
Paige,
G. D. (2002). Nonkilling global political science. Xlibris.
Statista.
(n.d.). Number of nuclear warheads worldwide as of January 2024.
Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/
Vision
of Humanity. (n.d.). Shifting the way we think about nonkilling and
nonviolence. Retrieved from https://www.visionofhumanity.org/shifting-way-think-nonkilling/
Ware,
A. (n.d.). UN Human Rights Committee condemns the threat or use of nuclear
weapons and other WMD. Unfold Zero. Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/un-human-rights-committee-condemns-the-threat-or-use-of-nuclear-weapons-and-other-wmd/
Wigglesworth,
A. (2022). Even a limited nuclear war could kill a third of world’s population,
study shows. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-15/even-limited-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-study-finds
Younger,
S. M. (2013). Foreword. In J. E. Pim (Ed.), Nonkilling security &
the state (pp. 13-14). Center for Global Nonkilling & Creighton
University. Honolulu & Omaha.
Dr.
Roland Joseph is a former Haitian
journalist, a member of the TRANSCEND Network for
Peace Development Environment, a researcher at the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK),
and a translator of Glenn Durland Paige’s book, Nonkilling Global
Political Science, into Haitian Creole. He is the former chair of the
Latin America and Caribbean Working Group (LACWG) of the Department of Conflict
Resolution Studies at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) in Florida. He
introduced nuclear disarmament education in the Haitian and Caribbean
communities in the US with the support from the Campaign for Peace,
Disarmament, and Common Security (CPDCS); he also advocates in collaboration
with the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the Université Publique du
Sud-Est à Jacmel (UPSEJ), Haiti, for integrating peace education in the
curriculum of the Haitian school system. Dr. Joseph has a BA in Political
Science and holds an MA degree in Peace and Conflict Studies from the
University of Massachusetts Lowell and a Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and
Resolution with a concentration in Global Conflict from Nova Southeastern
University (NSU). His research focuses on non-killing global political science
theory and nuclear disarmament. Email: jrolandjoseph@gmail.com
Good work always at
NAPF. This org. never swerves from its
dedication to ending nuclear weapons. --D
|
|
|
We are pleased to share that Team NAPF is in
Geneva for the 2024 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) Preparatory Committee, taking place from July 22 to August 2. Our delegation include
President, Dr. Ivana Nikolić Hughes; Policy and Advocacy Director, Christian
Ciobanu; and Communications and Media Coordinator, Kenneth Chiu. We are joined by a dedicated group of eight
interns and three youth leaders from our youth initiative, Reverse the Trend.
Our team has been busy attending plenary sessions, organizing and
participating in side events, delivering statements, and meeting with
diplomats. Please see below for more details on our
activities in Geneva and information about our upcoming events in Santa
Barbara. |
|
|
|
|
Our Statements at the NPT PrepCom
NAPF Statement:
Dr. Hughes advocated for nuclear disarmament and
nuclear justice at the NPT conference, emphasizing the urgent need for action
and concrete and time-bound steps. Read and watch full statement HERE.
Pranathi
Chintalapudi and Bobby Verhey, NAPF / RTT Youth Activists, delivered the youth
statement, endorsed by a coalition of youth organizations. Read and watch
full statement HERE.
Our Side Events at the NPT PrepCom Nuclear Abolition: A World Free of Nuclear Weapons
|
Panelists at the the NAPF / RTT side event in
Palais des Nations addressed nuclear abolition, justice, and education,
highlighting global efforts for a nuclear-free world and the promise of the Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons.
Read more HERE. |
Youth Perspectives on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons
|
At the Graduate Institute, the NAPF / RTT side
event featured remarks from H.E. Amb. Akan Rakhmetullin of Kazakhstan, Chair
of the NPT PrepCom, and H.E. Amb. Teburoro Tito of Kiribati, among other
esteemed guest speakers. Read more HERE. |
On July 30, we will host a panel featuring key representatives from Austria, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands, along with experts from UNHCR, NAPF, and RTT, to discuss the enduring impacts of nuclear testing.
Upcoming
Events
|
|
Join us on September 26 to honor Patricia
Ellsberg, Ambassador Elayne Whyte, and Véronique Christory for their
impactful peace and nuclear abolition work at the Second Women Waging Peace
Luncheon. Learn more and purchase tickets and sponsorships HERE. |
|
Join us on September 27 for a powerful
performance on nuclear weapons, created by seven-time Fringe First winner
Chris Thorpe and Claire O’Reilly (Abbey Theatre) and developed with Tony Award-winning
Rachel Chavkin. Learn more and obtain free tickets and sponsorships HERE. |
|
2024 HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI ANTHOLOGY
Part I
Dick. Robert Jewett. Captain America Complex: The Dilemma of
Zealous Nationalism. Santa Fe, 1984.
ICAN: 7th
ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNTPNW UN TREATY FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR.
FILM: The Vow From Hiroshima by Susan Strickler, about Setsuko
Thurlow.
Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation. 30th Annual Sadako Peace
Day Invitation, 7-9-24.
Back from the Brink, “From Trinity to Nagasaki.”
David Swanson. Which
Country Is Safest During a Nuclear War?
David Swanson. Believing
in Nuclear Deterrence and Angels
Dick
Bennett and Karen Madison. The Threat of
Nuclear War Should be Studied in Our Public Schools.
Prabir Purkayastha. “Oppenheimer Paradox: Power of
Science, Weakness of Scientists.”
Ben Norton. “Atomic Bombing of Japan was
Not Necessary to End WWII.”
MARK MUHICH. “Oppenheimer, the
Sequel.”
JOSHUA
FRANK. “Revisiting the Bombing of Nagasaki,
78 Years Later. “
Brian McGlinchey. “Hiroshima, Nagasaki Bombings were Needless, Said
World War II’s Top U.S. Military Leaders.”
Norman Solomon. “The US Government Once Called Hiroshima and
Nagasaki ‘Nuclear Tests.’”
Seiji
Yamada. “Oppenheimer, War Criminal.”
See: US SOVIET/RUSSOPHOBIA ANTHOLOGY #3
Cold War II
John Bellamy Foster, et al. Washington’s New Cold War: A
Socialist Perspective.
Engler. US, NATO, Canada: Bigotry v. Russia
Norton. Unity Above Truth
Western Censorship
Hall. Radio New Zealand v. “Russian Propaganda”
Johnstone. DOJ v. “Weaponized Speech.”
Other Effects of Western Cold War
Borenstein. Russian Paranoia.
Resistance to Bigotry
Red Books Day
Peacemaking, Peacemakers
Douglass. JFK
and the Unspeakable
Kennedy and Kruschev --Dick
Chris Hedges and Jeffrey Sachs on Sachs’ To
Move the World
Scott Ritter. Waging Peace and
Daniel Ellsberg
Researching Soviet/Russophobia in Mullins Library
Contents of SovietRussophobia Anthology #2
END OMNI HIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI REMEMBRANCE 2024
AUGUST 6 AND 9 (AUGUST 4 EVENT, Part II)
No comments:
Post a Comment