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)

By ScottRitter
Substack 

. . .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:

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).

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.

Youth Statement:

 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 

Youth Perspectives on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons 

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

 2024 HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI ANTHOLOGY Part I
Dick.  Robert Jewett.  Captain America Complex: The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism.  Santa Fe, 1984. ICAN: 7^th 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 OMNIHIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI REMEMBRANCE 2024

AUGUST 6 AND 9 (AUGUST 4 EVENT, Part II)