Speech to World Conference Against A&H Bombs

The Current Crises, Preventing Nuclear War, and Overcoming the U.S.-Japan Military Alliance

Joseph Gerson ^*
World Conference Against A- & H- Bombs
Hiroshima, August 2006

It is a privilege to return to the World Conference which provides us the information, analysis, and more importantly the inspiration to keep on keepin' on. Even as we confront crises and existential threats, this is also a time to celebrate Nihon Hidankyo's 50^th anniversary, to appreciate Hibakusha's courage and contributions, and to learn all that we can from them - including their steadfastness - while they are with us.

This is a dangerous time. The U.S. and Iran have been engaged in a proxy war, which is being paid for with the deaths and shattered lives of Lebanese, Palestinian, and Israeli civilians. In a worst case scenario, this war could lead to Israeli or U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and to a still wider war. The U.S. National Security Statement is clear that "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." The threat is not to the U.S., but to its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East.

As part of its "counterproliferation" policy, the Bush Administration has threatened Iran with military - even nuclear attacks - unless it forswears uranium enrichment - even to the comparatively low levels needed for power generation. Iran's rulers are, understandably, no longer willing to submit decades of Anglo-American subversion, repression, and threats. They insist on their NPT right to nuclear power generation technologies. They may have also concluded that they will no longer tolerate the double standard whereby the U.S. not only maintains but develops new and more usable nuclear weapons, terrorizes nations with nuclear threats, and turns a blind eye to Israel's nuclear arsenal. Believing that nine or ten wrongs make a right, Iran may be developing a nuclear arsenal.

Seymour Hersh reports that the Pentagon has presented plans to the White House calling "for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons against underground nuclear sites." He also reports that U.S. warplanes "have been flying simulated nuclear -weapons delivery missions" since last summer. Bush and company tell us that their "preferred path is diplomatic", but they are supplying Israel with precision guided munitions and refuse to offer Iran a non-aggression pledge in European-led negotiations. Apparently related to its nuclear threat are plans to simulate a "low-yield nuclear weapon strike against a hardened tunnel" to be conducted on for the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Nuclear threats have become a staple of U.S. wars against non-nuclear states. In 1991, the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense threatened nuclear attacks if Saddam Hussein used chemical or biological weapons. Clinton and Bush II prepared and threatened nuclear attacks against Iraq and Libya. Each endorsed first strike-nuclear war fighting and approved development of new nuclear weapons systems. And, both described nuclear weapons as "the cornerstone" of U.S. policies.

Genocidal first-strike nuclear war fighting is now "the cornerstone" of an ostensibly democratic nation's policies! In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson intimated this danger when he advised Truman that with its fire bombings of Japanese cities and the planned A-bombings, the U.S. was "beginning to compete with Hitler." Several years later, several members of the of the General Advisory Committee which advised Truman not to develop hydrogen bombs, warned that they endangered humanity as a whole and were "an evil thing considered in any light."

Bush's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) recommitted the U.S. to first-strike nuclear war fighting and named seven nations as primary U.S. nuclear targets: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. It called for building a new "bunker buster," up to seventy times more powerful than the Hiroshima A-bomb which, despite Congressional opposition, has yet to be definitively defeated. To ensure that the U.S. has the genocidal weapons needed to impose "the arrangement for the 21^st century," the NPR urged the nuclear weapons labs design a new generation of nuclear warheads - called "reliable replacement warheads." These, we are told, will "restore us to a level of capability comparable to what we had during the Cold War." The NPR also called for accelerating preparations to resume nuclear weapons testing so that the Pentagon can be sure its "Reliable Replacements" can vaporize command bunkers, cities and nations.

There are parallels between the "reliable replacements" and the Euromissiles of the early 1980s. A campaign similar to the Nuclear Weapons Freeze may be the appropriate response.

The U.S. is now also deploying "missile defenses" ostensibly designed to defend against North Korean attack. Yet, as the Chinese tell us, their ultimate function is to serve as shields to complement U.S. first strike swords, increasing the dangers of nuclear war and of a Northeast Asian arms race.

The Bush Pentagon has also published a version of its "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" that tells us "deterrence" is not limited to preventing nuclear attacks, but is designed to prevent others from taking "courses of action" inimitable to U.S. interests. China, Russia, France and Germany were thus reminded of their proper places, and Iran and Venezuela were warned not to adopt oil, energy, or courses of action that would "harm U.S. national interests." The Joint Doctrine argued that nuclear wars can be won and reconfirmed the bankruptcy of the Moscow Treaty. It explains that U.S. nuclear forces will not actually be reduced because "US strategic nuclear weapons remain in storage and serve as an augmentation capability should US strategic nuclear force requirements rise above the levels of the Moscow Treaty."

All of this reinforces the Bush National Security Statement that codified the unilateralist approach to empire. With the return of neoconservatives to power, the Statement reprised the 1992 Cheney-Wolfowitz Defense Policy Guidance that made preventing the "emergence" of regional or global competitors the first priority of U.S. foreign and military policies. A rising power need not prepare or threaten to attack the U.S. to suffer "preemptive actions." Instead, they could be devastated for the "crime" of "emerging" as a major power. China and even the European Union were thus implicitly forewarned. Although the debacle in Iraq has reduced the neoconservatives' influence, as we seen in the Middle East and Korea, U.S. policies have only marginally changed.

We see this in the sabotage of the NPT. The Bush administration didn't mourn the collapse of last year's Review Conference. Instead it declared that it was "ready to take over," and Secretary Rice boasted about the unproven successes of the U.S. Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in which Japan participates. The quality and legality of PSI are debatable. It is U.S.-led program, involving just over fifteen nations to seize shipments of nuclear materials and technologies on land, sea and in the air. It operates outside the U.N. Charter and in violation of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Another manifestation of the U.S. disregard for the U.N. and the NPT is its embrace of nuclear India. To cement an incipient alliance with New Delhi targeted against China and Islamist forces, Bush is helping India to circumvent the NPT by offering it advanced nuclear technologies and nuclear fuel with little asked in return. This, The Guardian tells us, "removed the one incentive many countries had to stay in the NPT: the right to buy civilian nuclear technology in return for forgoing the right to build nuclear weapons."

Japan has roles in the Bush National Strategy Statement. The U.S., it says, will "look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and global affairs based on our common interests." It also warns Beijing that "In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors…China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness." China has been seen in the U.S. as a "rising power", now a "potential strategic competitor," that must be integrated into the U.S.-Japanese dominated Asia-Pacific and global systems. Japanese military muscle and resources are seen as essential to both containment and engagement.

Then there is the expansion of the U.S.-Japan military alliance (AMPO.) Thinking structurally, we should remember that the post-war Japanese state was designed to function as a U.S. client regime, with its geostrategic, economic, political and intellectual resources serving U.S. ambitions. The road from military occupation to becoming Washington's most important Asian ally passed through at least five stages: 1) the secret 1952 signing of the U.S.-Japan mutual Security Treaty in 1952, 2) the traumatic 1960 treaty revision; 3) the 1969 Nixon-Sato communiqué providing for reversion of Okinawa and for a growing role for the emerging Japanese military, 4) the Reagan-Suzuki and Reagan-Nakasone communiqués which restructured the alliance to reflect Japan's economic and technological power, and 5) the current phase that began with the 1996 Clinton-Hashimoto agreement to secure the long-term presence of U.S. bases in Japan and now includes unconstitutional overseas deployment of Japanese troops to support U.S. wars, as well as the drive to eliminate Article 9.

Now the world's second largest national economy, Japan remains Washington's invaluable junior partner and is essential to containing China. The U.S. National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project compares China with "a united Germany in the 19^th century and a powerful United States in the early 20^th century - which [will] transform the geopolitical landscape, with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries."

Joe Nye, who had primary responsibility for U.S. Asia policy through most of the 1990s, warned that twice in the 20^th century the U.S. and Britain failed to integrate rising powers (Germany and Japan) into their systems, resulting in world wars that must not be repeated. China, Nye warned, must be engaged and contained.

Two of Washington's responses to China have included "missile defenses" and moving military bases away from Europe and toward Asia. Ezra Vogel, the State Department's former intelligence chief for Asia, once explained that a "grand bargain" with China might be possible if the U.S. surrounded it with "missile defenses" to "neutralize" all of Beijing's missile forces. "Missile defenses" are, of course, reinforced by and protect hundreds of U.S. military bases and nearly 100,000 U.S. troops along China's periphery, and the nuclear-armed Seventh Fleet.

North Korea's nuclear and missile programs provide ideal cover for "missile defense" deployments and other military planning targeted against China. In addition to those deployed at sea, land-based anti-missile missiles are now in Alaska and are being brought to Japan. And, the Japanese elite is attempting to mobilize public opinion by arguing that the constitution must be revised if Japan is to defend itself against North Korea missiles that cannot stay aloft. The Japanese Defense White Paper now also invokes a Chinese threat.

The U.S. is also "diversifying" the locations of its military bases to better encircle China. Thus we see the "realignment" of U.S. bases in Japan to silence Okinawan opinion while increasing U.S. military power by dispersing bases more widely across Japan. Similarly, U.S. forces are being moved from South Korea's major cities and from the DMZ to Pyeontaek. Guam is to be a new U.S. military hub. U.S. forces have returned to the Philippines. U.S. Military ties with Indonesia are being restored. Australia is Washington's sheriff in the South Pacific. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld just returned from Vietnam. There is the tacit alliance with India, and U.S. bases in Central Asia complete the encirclement.

Reality is, of course, complex. Even as the U.S. works to contain China, the two countries share many interests. Their economies are increasingly entwined, and in a reversal of fortunes Chinese economic growth and security - and possibly the continued rule of the Chinese Communist Party - appear to depend on continued access to U.S. markets. The 9-11 attacks also opened the way for U.S.-Chinese collaboration to contain Islamist terrorism, an opening Beijing has used to repress Islamic minorities seeking greater autonomy. With the U.S.-Chinese trade imbalance, Beijing also holds trump cards in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. currency reserves and bonds which, in a crisis, could be changed to Euros or simply dumped with staggering consequences for the U.S. economy.

Encouraging Japanese hyper-nationalism, pressing revision of the Japanese constitution, and deepening the U.S.-Japan military alliance are ideal ways to drive additional wedges between Japan, and North Korea and China. This is the game of divide and conquer.

With U.S. encouragement, Japan has been the world's second or third greatest military spender for most of the past decade. While Tokyo and Washington manufacture consent by appearing to tremble in the face of North Korea's missile program, Japan has rockets can target China and Korea. And, a primary author of Japan's Defense White Paper reminded us that Japan's military interprets the "peace constitution" as giving it the right to build and deploy tactical nuclear weapons (Hiroshima-size weapons,) even if the JDA has yet to exercise this right. Japan's 400 tons of weapons grade plutonium and its growing militaristic nationalism lead neighbors to take the JDA seriously.

Having demanded that Japan "show" its military "flag" and encouraged Japan to revise its constitution, Washington accepts transgressions that horrify democratic Japanese and neighboring nations. U.S. leaders understand that to change a constitution and to move a nation to engage in war, profound social, intellectual and political changes must first be engineered. So, there is silence from the U.S. as right-wing ideologues, supported by senior LDP figures, rewrite history textbooks to teach that Japan's Fifteen Year War was an advance, not a series of criminal aggressions, and that the Nanjing Massacre never occurred. The U.S. stands aside when teachers are punished for refusing to sing the wartime anthem praising the Emperor and for failing to honor the flag of the "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," and Washington turns a blind eye to Prime Ministers and cabinet members as they reify Yasakuni Shrine.

There are many ways to respond. Most immediately, we must demand diplomatic - not military - solutions to the Middle East's wars. Iran's nuclear program provides an opportunity to insist that non-proliferation of nuclear cannot be achieved with nuclear threats and a hierarchy of nuclear terror, but only through nuclear weapons abolition. It is time to demand that the Middle East become a nuclear weapons free zone, and for the U.S. and other nuclear powers to finally fulfill their Article VI NPT commitments.

Christopher Weeramantry, the former Vice President of the World Court, reminds us that international law and the creation of the United Nations were won at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives over the last five centuries. They are the strongest foundations we have to prevent military aggressions and nuclear war. We cannot allow our leaders, be they President Bush or Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe, to threaten unilateral attacks. We cannot permit them to launch attacks or engage in military programs in violation of the U.N. Charter. And, we cannot allow the nuclear powers to disregard their NPT obligations. We have many road maps to nuclear weapons abolition, most recently the recent Blix Commission Report.

Peace means respecting the inspiring commitments of the Japanese people. Polls tell us that 70% of Japanese want Article 9 preserved. For six decades Okinawans have resisted U.S. military colonization. And, to the surprise of many, the voters of Iwakuni spoke for Japan's silent majority when they voted NO! to U.S. bases and implicitly to war.

In closing, let me point to two precious Japanese resources. For fifty years Nihon Hidankyo has served with prophetic courage. We should use this anniversary to learn all that we can from the Hibakusha, to preserve and promote their searing memories and promising vision, and to rededicate ourselves to eliminating nuclear weapons. A second gift is the "Swift abolition of nuclear weapons." It provides us with a tool to engage our neighbors, and to demonstrate that the people of the world have had enough.

Together, let us work for No more Hiroshimas! No more Nagasakis! No More Nuclear Weapons! And No More Hibakusha! 7/23/06

*Dr. Joseph Gerson is Director of Programs and Direction of the Peace and Economic Security Program of the American Friends Service Committee. E-maiJGerson@afsc.org APPENDEX A

Partial Listing of Incidents of Nuclear Blackmail

1946 Truman threatens Soviets regarding Northern Iran.
1946 Truman sends SAC bombers to intimidate Yugoslavia following the downing of U.S. aircraft over Yugoslavia.
1948 Truman threatens Soviets in response to Berlin blockade.
1950 Truman threatens Chinese when U.S. Marines were surrounded at Chosin Reservoir in Korea.
1951 Truman approves military request to attack Manchuria with nuclear weapons if significant numbers of new Chinese Forces join the war.
1953 Eisenhower threatens China to force an end to Korean War on terms acceptable to U.S.
1954 Eisenhower's Secretary of State Dulles offers French three tactical nuclear weapons to break the siege at Dienbienphu, Vietnam. Supported by Nixon's public trial balloons.
1954 Eisenhower used nuclear armed SAC bombers to reinforce CIA-backed coup in Guatemala.
1956 Bulganin threatens London and Paris with nuclear attacks, demanding withdrawal following their invasion of Egypt.
1956 Eisenhower counter by threatening the U.S.S.R. while also demanding British and French retreat from Egypt.
1958 Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, if necessary to prevent extension of revolution into Kuwait.
1958 Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against China if they invade the island of Quemoy.
1961 Kennedy threatens Soviets during Berlin Crisis.
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
1967 Johnson threatens Soviets during Middle East War.
1967 Johnson's public threats against Vietnam are linked to possible use of nuclear weapons to break siege at Khe Shan.
1969 Brezhnev threatens China during border war.
1969 Nixon's "November Ultimatum" against Vietnam.
1970 Nixon signals U.S. preparations to fight nuclear war during Black September War in Jordan.
1973 Israeli Government threatens use of nuclear weapons during the "October War".
1973 Kissinger threatens Soviet Union during the last hours of the "October War" in the Middle East.
1973 Nixon pledges to South Vietnamese President Thieu that he will respond with nuclear attacks or the bombing of North Vietnam's dikes if it violated the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords
1975 Sec. of Defense Schlesinger threatens North Korea with nuclear retaliation should it attack south Korea in the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.
1980 Carter Doctrine announced.
1981 Reagan reaffirms the Carter Doctrine.
1982 British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher threatens to eliminate Buenos Aires during the Falklands' War.
1990 Pakistan threatens India during confrontation over Kashmir.
1990-91 Bush threatens Iraq during the "Gulf War."
1993 Clinton threatens North Korea.
1994 Clinton's confrontation with North Korea
1996 China threatens "Los Angeles" during confrontation over Taiwan
1996 Clinton threatens Libya with nuclear attack to prevent completion of underground chemical weapons production complex.
1998 Clinton threatens Iraq with nuclear attack
1999 India & Pakistan threaten and prepare nuclear threats during the Kargil War.
2001 U.S. forces placed on a DEFCON alert in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
2002 Bush communicates an implied threat to counter any Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons with a nuclear attack.
2003 U.S. mobilization and implicit nuclear threats against North Korea
2006 French Prime Minister Chirac threatens first strike nuclear attacks against nations that practice terrorism against France.
2006 Implicit U.S. threats to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure with "bunker-buster" atomic bombs