Dancing for Disarmament

by CKR

George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn are trying to change the world. They have published two op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, a year apart, calling for the United States to move toward nuclear disarmament.

It’s not clear to me that they’re succeeding. Although the unlikely venue for their bipartisan call suggests some mind-changing, I was disturbed by Charlie Rose’s wink-wink, nudge-nudge about the initiative last week.

Charlie’s reaction is at 11:50. Just before that, Alistair Horne suggests an attempt at a Middle East nuclear weapons free zone, but recognizes that that would take a very brave US president.

Now Charlie can be entirely superficial, verging on the ignorant at times. Additionally, this particular moment may or may not represent what he thinks. But I have to wonder if his reaction is typical.

One difficulty may be the lack of an easy way to characterize the proposals. “Schultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn” is quite a mouthful. So is “the Wall Street Journal proposals.” “Nuclear disarmament” is not specific enough. “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” hasn’t caught on; Charlie seemed to feel it was absurd, or perhaps merely impractical. For this post, I’ll refer to them as “the four.”

There have been two conferences now on the four’s proposals, one last October at Stanford University and one last week in Norway. The proceedings are, for the most part, of the academic type, although there are some good ideas among the totally predictable.

Much of the work at conferences goes on outside the sessions, the networking and horsetrading in the corridors. However, the attendees at both of these conferences are pretty much the same people who talk to each other anyway.

So how is a world free of nuclear weapons to be brought about? It is useful to get the various governmental and think-tank denizens on board, which seems to be the primary objective of these two conferences. But it is far from sufficient.

Meanwhile, Back at the Grassroots
Last Saturday, I attended part of an all-day session on nuclear issues in Northern New Mexico. I found out about it only when I read the morning newspaper, which I tend to do late, so I missed about half of the day.

The session was sponsored by the City of Santa Fe, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and New Mexico Conference of Churches and Faithful Security: National Religious Partnership on the Nuclear Weapons Danger. Physicians for Social Responsibility, the New Mexico Conference of Churches, and the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops also participated. The focus of the session was on the environmental dangers of Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, with the expectation of enhanced dangers if pit production is increased.

The middle two groups have long opposed nuclear weapons. They seem to have begun, if I recall correctly, as nuclear abolitionist organizations and decided that the effective way to end nuclear weapons research and production was to prohibit the production of nuclear waste. This emphasis probably arose from a genuine concern for health and the environment as well as tactics. Shutting down the New Mexico national laboratories would threaten many people’s jobs, so this tactic, along with a certain level of exaggeration and scientific inaccuracy, quickly marginalized the organizations.

But the cities of Santa Fe and Espanola have come out publicly against increased pit production at Los Alamos, and the more inventive citizen groups have developed programs of monitoring their communities for radioactivity. Physicians for Social Responsibility and the church organizations are not fringe organizations.

Saturday’s presentations contained reports on the various programs, along with exaggeration, and various degrees of scientific accuracy. A geologist with whom I worked on the Los Alamos environmental restoration program has become a whistleblower on the program’s unfortunate design of its monitoring wells. The wells were drilled after I left the program, and I am unable to judge his presentation without further information. The question of intention versus incapacity looms large, as it has for some time, and I still have no answers to it.

The logo for the session was oddly similar to that for the Norwegian conference. I've posted them in that order.

Circles
Many years ago, I heard a talk by the anthropologist Alfonso Ortiz, a member of Ohkay Owingeh, formerly San Juan Pueblo. He explained that dances at the pueblos require the participation of the entire world, the levels of participation defining, as I recall, seven circles. I can’t recall all the circles precisely, but the innermost circle is made up of the elders who determine when the dance shall be, the next is the drummers and dancers who prepare spiritually and physically in the kivas, the next is those who watch reverently, and so on, out to the vendors of fry bread and lemonade and then to the rest of the world.

Making a world free of nuclear weapons is the same sort of enterprise. George Schultz and the Hoover Institution provide the moving power; the additional signers of the op-eds are the next circle out. Then come the participants at the conferences, and after that come the various think-tanks who will talk and write reports about the conferences and their ideas.

The Pueblo Indians dance for the entire world. The more people who participate, the more effective the dance in bringing about a better world. And participation means many things, even buying and selling frybread and kids playing with dogs.

But the effort to make the world free of nuclear weapons seems to have stopped at the inner circles. The four’s proposal was mentioned at Saturday’s session, and some of us in the blogosphere have written about it, tried to move toward a broader consensus. The dancers know that all those others, performing their parts in the world-dance, are part of what they are doing. The conference-preparers seem not to be so enlightened.

How Reagan Did It
Or almost did it. It appears that Ronald Reagan had long been a nuclear abolitionist, and he met a like-minded partner in Mikhail Gorbachev. The latest recounting of their meeting at Reykjavik in 1986, by Richard Rhodes in Arsenals of Folly, shows how close they came.

But in the 1980s, the outer circles were doing their part. There were nuclear abolition movements in all the countries that have nuclear weapons and many more. Yes, they were running around doing all sorts of strange things, chaining themselves to fences and getting the science wrong, and they brought their children and dogs to some of the events. They sang songs and danced, as do the inner Pueblo circles. Reagan and Gorbachev probably couldn’t have achieved what they did without the political support represented by those outer circles.

So if the think-tankers aren’t going to drum and dance for us, they should be glad to encourage others to. Nuclear disarmament involves the whole world.

Comments

[Ailbe]

First comment is, Blogs like this one are what give me hope for the "New Media" Whirled View has become a staple read for me because of well thought out and well informed articles such as this one. I also enjoy hearing about the birds and flora of New Mexico ;p

Second comment, and more importantly. My biggest issue as a working American, husband and father, is how to wisely invest my time. "Dancing for Disarmament" as you've so eloquently phrased it, is a great cause, and one I could gladly give time and effort to helping. The problem as I see it is finding the right group that works towards my important goals but doesn't come across as "crazy" if you know what I mean. I don't want the limited efforts I can lend to be easily marginalized by nuts on either extreme side. Do you have some criteria you could share on what groups you lend support to, and which you give a pass?

I've come to realize over the last few years that the only way rational voices will be heard is if they actually speak up. It seems an easy concept to understand, but somehow we have had the leadership in this country able to defy all reason for the last 7 years because moderate, informed voices weren't heard. I've put some time into my candidate of choice, Barak Obama, for that reason. I would like to do the same for some other issues, but I'm not certain how to determine the best way to go about doing that.

Thanks for the continuing excellence of Whirled View.

[CKR]

Ailbe, thank you for your kind words. We want WhirledView to be helpful to our readers, and it's very nice to get some validation.

Your question is a good one, and I'm not sure I have a good answer. I am president of the Los Alamos Committee on Arms Control and International Security, which, we like to feel, meets your criteria of responsibility. What we advocate is very much like the program the four have outlined. So if you are in northern New Mexico, we would be glad to welcome you.

I didn't link to the organizations holding that Saturday meeting because they do tend toward the fringe. What seems to have happened since the eighties is that the fringier elements kept with the nuclear disarmament program, while the more middle-of-the road thought that we had a government that could figure it out after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Wrong!

I think that this election (and the past few) have convinced many people that they have to make their voices heard. Unfortunately, the infrastructure of citizen groups is no longer there, or has been taken over by the fringe.

There are a couple of ways to deal with this: flood the fringe groups and take them over for the middle, or start new groups. My general feeling is that the latter may be easier, although both require significant work.

That is why I am so disappointed by the four and the think tanks. They need to be encouraging much broader participation, but the Very Special People syndrome seems to be operating. I sent out our blog-tank consensus nuclear weapons policy to a number of people at think tanks and the presidential campaigns, asking for feedback. You can probably guess the response.

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Mitte midagi.

And it's not just that. The Los Alamos Committee has also had a hard time linking up with the think tanks, and our members haven't been weaving dreamcatchers. The Saturday bunch seem to be operating on their own as well, although I don't know if that's from their choice or that of the think tanks.

As to criteria, I know them when I see them, but I look for scientific accuracy, a responsible approach (for example, balanced disarmament among nations rather than unilateral) and how they are viewed in the community.

You've started a good discussion here. Any ideas from other readers?

[Courtenay Barnett]

Kissinger making a case for nuclear disarmament ( huh? - given his shameful history?)...read on....

Alfred Nobel and the real prize -peace.
Alfred Nobel and the real prize – peace.

“I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.”

Martin Luther King – acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize – December 10, 1964

As the inventor of dynamite, who amassed a fortune, Alfred Nobel thought that the destructive power of his invention would serve to bring an end to all wars. The modern day equivalent of Nobel’s thinking would be the concept of nuclear deterrence. Destructive power so overwhelming should make war inconceivable.

A French newspaper had misread Nobel’s brother’s death as that of Alfred. It published a less that admiring obituary terming Alfred Nobel, the “ merchant of death.” To avoid the posthumous reputation indicated by the premature announcement of his death, Nobel took the course of establishing via his will the Nobel Prize.

The purpose of the prize and the idea of peace

Alfred Nobel’s will bequeathed the prize:-

“…to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Two men – two concepts and the idea of peace

If Martin Luther King as a humane, albeit flawed ( as we all are) recipient of the Nobel Prize can be deemed a martyr for peace, no more significant contrast with a fellow Nobel laureate can be found than in the personage of Henry Alfred Kissinger.

Kissinger along with the Chief North Vietnamese negotiator Lu Duc Tho received and shared a Nobel Peace Prize. How, I ask myself, could Kissinger ever have qualified for a peace prize.

Kissinger’s misdeeds over his career as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State read like a chronicle of red-blooded horrors for the scale of human destruction consequent upon his actions:-

· Prolonging by four years from 1968 to 1972 the end of the Vietnam War.
· Participation in the illegal and secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia.
· Direct involvement in the destabilization of Angola.
· As head of the Presidential Committee on Central America giving succor to death squads.
· Supporting torture and repression under the reign of the Shah of Iran.
· Giving military, diplomatic and political support to the racist regime in South Africa.
· Directly assisting the murderous General Pinochet and undermining the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende.

Tortures, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, international terrorism, have all witnessed condemnation in the international community. If one gives support to and actively participates in acts that are manifestly illegal and inhumane does that make such an individual culpable? As Pinochet can accurately be termed a murderous dictator and torturer, and the House of Lords case in England permitting his extradition did not acknowledge Pinochet’s sovereign immunity, is Kissinger not one who remains manifestly accountable?

Among the humane expressions of concerns by this recipient of the Peace Prize, can be listed:-

“ I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people” ( translated: let us destroy Chile because we do not like the result of the democratic election – so let them be killed to be brought into line).

“ Why should we flagellate ourselves for what Cambodians did to each other”

Consider for a moment what the US with Kissinger’s direct participation did:-

President Johnson had halted the bombing in Vietnam, and Kissinger’s direct involvement ensured political deception and a false promise to the North Vietnamese, so as to facilitate, a hiatus and election of the Republican President, Richard Nixon. Four more totally unnecessary years of war continued in a war the America had already lost by 1968 and the figures of war deaths during the subsequent four years are:-

South Vietnamese – 86,101
Enemy – 475, 609
Americans – 31, 205

These are truncated numbers of deaths, deliberated limited to the four extra unnecessary years that the Vietnam War was escalated and made to last. What greater case for an indictment against Kissinger if the entire spectrum of his misdeeds were included. Add to this the facts of the secret and illegal bombings in Cambodia and Laos, and consider the accuracy of B-52s raining bombs from a great height on the Cambodians and Laotians, delivering to them with deadly ( even if not precise and accurately targeted “shock and awe”) what was callously termed “ breakfast”, “lunch”, “snack”, “dinner” and “dessert” as codenames for the bombing sorties. Add to these crimes some Agent Orange and chemical spraying of defoliants and pesticides and then apply some napalm and then inflict same on the people. Kissinger had a hand in all of this, knew and understood the levels of human carnage, was involved in the concealment from the press and Congress, and engaged in illegality at the highest levels in Washington. Putting it mildly, while 2,044,000 tons of bombs were, by Pentagon estimates, used during the entire Second World War, the US dropped 4,500,000 tons of explosives during the Vietnam War. For what we might well ask ourselves – for what?

China, the world’s most populous Communist country during the post- Vietnam era became a most favoured trading partner of the US. Vietnam was a poor peasant society, and what then was the war really about – Vietnam a threat to American national security? - was the war ever at all necessary?

Fortunately, however, Dr. Henry Kissinger as America’s undeniably most astute global analyst saw good cause in perpetrating and prolonging war in Vietnam, bombings in Laos and Cambodia, with quite intelligent geo-strategic sense in deploying deadly force against civilian populations. To his everlasting credit and distinction he has been duly awarded the “Peace Prize” for his tremendous humanitarian efforts.

Conclusion

If we do not at times reflect on history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Let the bombing of Iran begin and long live the necessary war in Iraq until the WMDs are found.

Without that audacious faith in the future of mankind, we might very well be left with only proof of the stupidities that forever confront man.

Recommended readings

“A Testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.” – J.M. Washington ( Editor)

“Sideshow – Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia” – William Shawcross

“The Trial of Henry Kissinger” – Christopher Hitchens

A factional title: “George Walker Bush – the Nobel Prize – for bringing peace and stability to the Middle East” – Author: Henry Alfred Kissinger

Courtenay Barnett is a graduate of London University. His areas of study were economics, political science and international law. He has been a practising lawyer for over twenty years, has been arrested for defending his views, and has argued public interest and human rights cases. His web site: www.globaljusticeonline.com

[CKR]

Ah - Mr. Barnett has graciously supplied an example where I was somewhat tonguetied.

Focused intensely on one topic, to the point of being willing to interrupt other conversations so that he may place his views on the record.

Those views being somewhat incoherent. The placer of those views may consider this a virtue, showing the intensity of his convictions.

No attempt is made to join those views to the preceding conversation. They are so important that they overshadow any trivial point anyone else was making.

Ad hominem rather than a discussion of ideas.

Those are signs that I stay away from in an organization, Ailbe. Sadly, I ran into a similar diatribe (on different grounds) from a Clinton advisor when I attempted to bring up these disarmament proposals.