Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Japan, May 8 2023 (IPS)

The Ukraine crisis, which in addition to bringing devastation to the people of that country has had severe impacts on a global scale—even giving rise to the specter of nuclear weapons use—has entered its second year. Against this backdrop and amid urgent calls for its resolution, the G7 Summit of leading industrial nations will be held in Hiroshima, Japan, from May 19 to 21.

In February of this year, an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly was held, where a resolution calling for the early realization of peace in Ukraine was adopted. Among the operative paragraphs of the resolution was one that urged the “immediate cessation of the attacks on the critical infrastructure of Ukraine and any deliberate attacks on civilian objects, including those that are residences, schools and hospitals.”

With that as a first essential step, all concerned parties must come together to create a space for deliberations toward a complete cessation of hostilities. Here I would like to propose that, as negotiations advance through the cooperative efforts of the concerned countries, they be joined by representatives of civil society, such as the physicians and educators who work in schools and hospitals to protect and nurture people’s lives and futures, participating as observers.

In March, the leaders of Russia and China issued a joint statement following their summit meeting which reads in part: “The two sides call for stopping all moves that lead to tensions and the protraction of fighting to prevent the crisis from getting worse or even out of control.” This is aligned with the resolution adopted by the emergency special session of the UN General Assembly.

The G7 Hiroshima Summit should develop concrete plans for negotiations that will lead to a cessation of hostilities.

I also urge the G7 to commit at the Hiroshima Summit to taking the lead in discussions on pledges of No First Use of nuclear weapons. The current crisis is without parallel in the length of time that the threat of use and the fear of actual use of nuclear weapons have persisted without cease.

Since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the hibakusha of those cities, in coordination with the larger civil society movement, have stressed the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons; non-nuclear-weapon states have engaged in continuous diplomatic efforts; and the states possessing nuclear weapons have exercised self-restraint. As a result, the world has somehow managed to maintain a seventy-seven-year record of non-use of nuclear weapons.

If international public opinion and the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons were to fail to provide their braking function, nuclear deterrence policy will compel humankind to stand on a precipitous ledge, never knowing when it might give way.

Since the start of the Ukraine crisis, I have written two public statements. In both, I referenced the joint statement by the five nuclear-weapon states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China) made in January 2022, which reiterated the principle that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” and called for it to serve as the basis for reducing the risk of nuclear weapons use.

Also of important note is the declaration issued by the G20 group in Indonesia last November, which stated: “The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”

The G20 member countries include nuclear-weapon states as well as nuclear-dependent states. It is deeply significant that these countries have officially expressed their shared recognition that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is “inadmissible”—the animating spirit of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

It is vital that this message be communicated powerfully to the world from Hiroshima.

As the G7 leaders revisit the actual consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation and the bitter lessons of the nuclear era, I urge that they initiate earnest deliberations on making pledges of No First Use so that their shared recognition of the inadmissible nature of nuclear weapons can find expression in changed policies.

If agreement could be reached on the principle of No First Use, which was at one point included in drafts of the final statement for last year’s NPT Review Conference, this would establish the basis on which states could together transform the challenging security environments in which they find themselves. I believe it is vital to make the shift to a “common security” paradigm.

Commitment to policies of No First Use is indeed a “prescription for hope.” It can serve as the axle connecting the twin wheels of the NPT and TPNW, speeding realization of a world free from nuclear weapons.

For our part, the SGI has continued to work with the world’s hibakusha, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)—which arose from its parent body IPPNW—and other organizations first for the adoption and now the universalization of the TPNW. As members of civil society, we are committed to promoting the prompt adoption of policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons, generating momentum to transform our age.

The author is Peace builder and Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda, who is President of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). https://www.daisakuikeda.org/ Read full statement here full statement.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Daisaku Ikeda. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Japan, Jan 18 2023 (IPS)

The Ukraine crisis that erupted in February last year continues with no prospect for cessation. The intensified hostilities have inflicted great suffering in population centers and destroyed infrastructure facilities, compelling large numbers of civilians, including many children and women, to live in a state of constant peril.

The history of the twentieth century, which witnessed the horrors caused by two global conflicts, should have brought home the lesson that nothing is more cruel or miserable than war.

During World War II, when I was in my teens, I experienced the firebombing of Tokyo. To this day, I remember with great vividness getting separated from family members as we fled desperately through a sea of flames, and not learning that they were safe until the following day.

How many people have lost their lives or livelihoods in the ongoing crisis, how many have found their own and their family’s ways of life suddenly and irrevocably altered?

Many other countries have also been seriously impacted in the form of constrained food supplies, spiking energy prices and disrupted financial markets.

It is crucial that we find a breakthrough in order to prevent any further worsening of the conditions facing people worldwide, to say nothing of the Ukrainian people who are compelled to live with inadequate and uncertain supplies of electricity amidst a deepening winter and intensifying military conflict.

I therefore call for the urgent holding of a meeting, under UN auspices, among the foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine and other key countries in order to reach agreement on a cessation of hostilities. I also urge that earnest discussions be undertaken toward a summit that would bring together the heads of all concerned states in order to find a path to the restoration of peace.

Together with calling for the earliest possible resolution to the Ukraine crisis, I wish to stress the crucial importance of implementing measures to prevent the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, both in the current crisis and all future conflicts.

Nuclear rhetoric has ratcheted up, and the risk that these weapons might actually be used stands today at its highest level since the end of the Cold War. Even if no party seeks nuclear war, the reality is that, with nuclear arsenals in a continuing state of high alert, there is a considerably heightened risk of unintentional nuclear weapon use as a result of data error, unforeseen accident or confusion provoked by a cyberattack.

Along with reducing tensions with the goal of resolving the Ukraine crisis, I feel it is of paramount importance that the nuclear-weapon states initiate action to reduce nuclear risks as a means of ensuring that situations do not arise—either now or in the future—in which the possibility of nuclear weapons use looms. It was with this in mind that in July last year I issued a statement to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in which I urged the five nuclear-weapon states to make prompt and unambiguous pledges that they would never be the first to launch a nuclear strike—the principle of “No First Use.”

Regrettably, the August NPT Review Conference was unable to reach consensus on a final document. But this in no way means that the nuclear disarmament obligations set out in Article VI of the treaty no longer pertain. As the various drafts of the final document indicate, there was widespread support for nuclear risk reduction measures such as the adoption of No First Use policies and extending negative security assurances, by which nuclear-weapon states pledge never to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess them.

The pledge of No First Use is a measure that nuclear-weapon states can take even while maintaining for the present their current nuclear arsenals; nor does it mean that the threat of the some 13,000 nuclear warheads existing in the world today would quickly dissipate. However, what I would like to stress is that should this policy take root among nuclear-armed states, it will create an opening for removing the climate of mutual fear. This, in turn, can enable the world to change course—away from nuclear buildup premised on deterrence and toward nuclear disarmament to avert catastrophe.

Looking back, the global state of affairs during the Cold War era was characterized by a series of seemingly insoluble crises that rattled the world, spreading shockwaves of insecurity and dread. And yet humankind managed to find exit strategies and pull through.

One example of this is the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) held between the United States and the Soviet Union. Intention to hold these was announced on the day of the 1968 signing ceremony for the NPT, which had been negotiated in response to the bitter lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The SALT negotiations were the first steps taken by the US and the USSR to put the brakes on the nuclear arms race based on their nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT.

For those involved in these talks, to impose constraints on the nuclear policies that had been developed as the exclusive prerogative of the state could not have been easy. Nonetheless, this was a decision indispensable to the survival not only of the citizens of their respective nations, but of all humankind.

Having experienced first-hand the terror of teetering on the brink of nuclear war, the people of that time brought forth historic powers of imagination and creativity. Now is the time for all countries and peoples to come together to once again unleash those creative powers and bring into being a new chapter in human history.

The author is Peace builder and Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda, who is President of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). https://www.daisakuikeda.org/ Read full statement here full statement

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Apr 9 2015 (IPS)

From the end of April, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference will be held in New York. In this year that marks the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I add my voice to those urging substantial commitments and real progress toward the realisation of a world without nuclear weapons.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

In recent years, there has been an important shift in the debate surrounding nuclear weapons. This can be seen in the fact that, in October of last year, more than 80 percent of the member states of the United Nations lent their support to a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, in this way expressing their shared desire that nuclear weapons never be used – under any circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Vienna, Austria, in December, marked the first time that nuclear-weapon states – the United States and the United Kingdom – participated, acknowledging the existence of a complex debate on this question.

In order to break out of the current deadlock, I believe we need to refocus on the fundamental inhumanity of nuclear weapons in the full breadth of their impacts. Taking this as our point of departure, we must formulate measures to ensure that no country or people ever suffer the kind of irreparable damage that nuclear weapons would wreak.

Here, I would like to propose two specific initiatives. One is to develop a new NPT-centred institutional framework – a commission dedicated to nuclear disarmament:“We must formulate measures to ensure that no country or people ever suffer the kind of irreparable damage that nuclear weapons would wreak”

I urge the heads of government of as many states as possible to attend the NPT Review Conference this year, and that they participate in a forum where the findings of the international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons are shared.

Then, in light of the fact that all parties to the NPT unanimously expressed their concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons at the 2010 Review Conference, I hope that each head of government or national delegation will take the opportunity of this year’s conference to introduce their respective plans of action to prevent such consequences.

Finally, building upon the “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament,” reaffirmed at the 2000 Review Conference, I propose that an “NPT disarmament commission” be established as a subsidiary organ to the NPT to ensure the prompt and concrete fulfilment of this commitment.

The second initiative I would like to propose concerns the creation of a platform for negotiations for a legal instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons:

Creation of such a platform should be based on a careful evaluation of the outcome of this year’s NPT Review Conference, and it could draw on the 2013 General Assembly resolution calling for a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to be convened no later than 2018. This conference could be held in 2016 to begin the process of drafting a new treaty.

I strongly hope that Japan will work with other countries and with civil society to accelerate the process of eliminating nuclear weapons from our world.

In August of this year, the United Nations Conference on Disarmament Issues will be held in Hiroshima; the World Nuclear Victims’ Forum will take place in November, also in Hiroshima; and the annual Pugwash conference will be held in Nagasaki in November.

Planning is also under way for a World Youth Summit for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons to be held in Hiroshima at the end of August as a joint initiative by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and other groups. I hope that the summit will adopt a youth declaration pledging to bring the era of nuclear weapons to an end, and that it will help foster a greater solidarity among the world’s youth in support of a treaty to prohibit these weapons.

At the Vienna Conference in December, the government of Austria issued a pledge to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders in order to realise the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In the same spirit, together with the representatives of other faith-based organisations, the SGI last year organised interfaith panels in Washington D.C. and Vienna which issued Joint Statements expressing the participants’ pledge to work together for a world free of nuclear weapons.

The future is determined by the depth and intensity of the pledge made by people living in the present moment. The key to bringing the history of nuclear weapons to a close lies in ensuring that all actors – states, international organisations and civil society – take shared action, working with like-minded partners while holding fast to a deep commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons.

Edited by Phil Harris    

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Nov 21 2014 (IPS)

As we approach the 70th anniversary next year of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are growing calls to place the humanitarian consequences of their use at the heart of deliberations about nuclear weapons.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

The Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons presented to the U.N. General Assembly in October was supported by 155 governments, more than 80 percent of all member states.

The view powerfully expressed in the Joint Statement, that it is “in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances,” expresses the deepening consensus of humankind.

The Third International Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons will be held in Vienna on Dec. 8-9. This conference and its deliberations should provide further impetus to efforts to end the era of nuclear weapons, an era in which these apocalyptic weapons have been seen as the linchpin of national security for a number of states.

This can only happen when the goal of a nuclear-free world is taken up as the shared global enterprise of humanity with the full engagement of civil society.

Within the agenda of the Vienna Conference, there are two items in particular that require us to adopt the perspective of a shared global enterprise.Today, if a missile carrying a nuclear warhead were to be accidentally launched, there could be as little as 13 minutes before it reached its target.

The first is the examination of risk drivers for the inadvertent or unpredicted use of nuclear weapons due to human error, technical fault or cyber security.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, people were transfixed in horror as the world teetered on the edge of full-scale nuclear war. It took the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union 13 days of desperate effort to defuse the crisis.

Today, if a missile carrying a nuclear warhead were to be accidentally launched, there could be as little as 13 minutes before it reached its target. Escape or evacuation would be impossible, and the targeted city and its inhabitants would be devastated.

Further, if such an inadvertent use of a nuclear weapon were met with retaliation of even the most limited form, the impact on the global climate and ecology would result in a “nuclear famine” that could affect as many as two billion people.

The use of a single nuclear weapon can obliterate and render meaningless generations of patient effort by human beings to create lives of happiness, to create societies rich with culture. It is in this unspeakable outrage, rather than in the numerical calculation of the destructive potential of nuclear weapons, that their inhuman nature is most starkly demonstrated.

The second agenda item that will bring into sharp focus the uniquely horrific nature of nuclear weapons—the aspect that makes them fundamentally different from other weapons—is the impact of nuclear weapons testing.

The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not the only people to have directly experienced the horrendous effects of nuclear weapons. As the shared use of the term “hibakusha” indicates, large numbers of people continue to suffer from the consequences of the more than 2,000 nuclear weapons tests that have been carried out to date.

Further, communities near nuclear weapons development facilities in the nuclear-weapon states have experienced severe radiation contamination, and there are ongoing concerns about the health impacts on those who have worked in or lived near these facilities.

As these examples demonstrate, the decision to maintain nuclear weapons—even if they are not actually used—presents severe threats to people’s lives and dignity.

Annual global expenditures on nuclear weapons are said to total more than 100 billion dollars. If this enormous sum were to be directed not only at improving the lives of the citizens of the nuclear states, but at supporting countries where people continue to struggle against poverty and inadequate healthcare services, the benefit to humankind would be immeasurable.

To continue allocating vast sums of money for the maintenance of a state’s nuclear posture runs clearly counter to the spirit of the UN Charter, which calls for the maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources—a call echoed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Further, we must face squarely the inhumanity of perpetuating a distorted global order in which people whose lives could easily be improved are forced to continue living in dangerous and degrading conditions.

By taking up these two crucial themes, the Vienna Conference will place in sharp relief the underlying essence of the threat humankind imposes on itself by maintaining current nuclear postures—through the continuation of this “nuclear age.” At the same time, it will be an important opportunity to interrogate security arrangements that rely on nuclear weapons—and to do so from the perspective of the world’s citizens, each of whom is compelled to live in the shadow of this threat.

In 1957, in the midst of an accelerating nuclear arms race, second Soka Gakkai president and my personal mentor Josei Toda (1900–58) denounced nuclear weapons as a threat to people’s fundamental right to existence. He declared their use inadmissible—under any circumstance, without any exception.

The SGI’s efforts, in collaboration with various NGO partners, find their deepest roots in this declaration. By empowering people to understand and face the realities of nuclear weapons, we have sought to build a solidarity of global citizens dedicated to eliminating needless suffering from the face of the Earth.

The impassioned wish of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and of all the world’s hibakusha—is that no one else will have to suffer what they have endured. This determination finds resonant voice throughout civil society in support for the Joint Statement adopted by 155 of the world’s governments.

Even with governments whose understanding of their security needs prevents open support for the Joint Statement, there are real concerns about the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons.

I trust the Vienna Conference will serve to create an enlarged sphere of shared concern. This should then lead to the kind of shared action that will break the current stalemate surrounding nuclear weapons in the months leading up to the 70th anniversary of the world’s only uses of nuclear weapons in war.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Mar 29 2014 (IPS)

This past February, the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons was held in Nayarit, Mexico, as a follow-up to the first such conference held last year in Oslo, Norway. The conclusion reached by this conference, on the basis of scientific research, was that “no State or international organisation has the capacity to address or provide the short and long term humanitarian assistance and protection needed in case of a nuclear weapon explosion.”

As this makes clear, almost 70 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humanity remains defenceless in the face of the catastrophic effects that any use of nuclear weapons would inevitably produce.

Since May 2012, a succession of four joint statements warning of the dire humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have been issued. These statements have drawn support from a growing number of states; the Nayarit conference was attended by the representatives of 146 countries.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun.

In summing up the outcome of the conference, the Chair stressed the need for a legal framework outlawing these weapons, whose very existence is contrary to human dignity, stating that the time has come to initiate a diplomatic process to realise this goal. It is highly significant that three-quarters of the member states of the United Nations have expressed their shared desire for a world without nuclear weapons in this way.

Regrettably, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the nuclear-weapon states recognised under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), did not attend this meeting. What is needed most at this juncture is to find a common language shared by the countries signing these joint statements and the nuclear-weapon states.

The movement to focus on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has emerged against the backdrop of grassroots efforts by global civil society calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Crucially, this has included the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have long raised their voices in the cry that no one must ever again experience the horror of nuclear war.

On the other hand, the experience of being in possession of the “nuclear button” that would launch a devastating strike has steadily impressed on several generations of political leaders in the nuclear-weapon states the reality that nuclear weapons are unlike other armaments and cannot be considered militarily useful weapons. This has served as a restraint against their use.

In this sense, the two sides share a sentiment that can bridge the gulf between them – the desire never to witness or experience the catastrophic humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons. This can serve as the basis for a common language with which to explore the path towards a world without nuclear weapons.

I have repeatedly called for a nuclear abolition summit to be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki next year in 2015, the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of those cities. I hope that representatives of the nuclear-weapon states, the countries that have signed the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, as well as representatives of global civil society and, above all, youthful citizens from throughout the world, will gather in a world youth summit for nuclear abolition to adopt a declaration affirming their commitment to end dependence on nuclear weapons and bring the era of nuclear weapons to a close.

In this connection, I would like to offer some concrete proposals.

The first is for a nuclear weapons non-use agreement. One means of achieving this would be to place the catastrophic humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons use at the centre of the deliberations for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. Such an agreement would advance the implementation of Article VI of the NPT, under which the nuclear-weapon states have committed to pursuing nuclear disarmament in good faith.

Regions such as Northeast Asia and the Middle East, which are not currently covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones, could take advantage of a non-use agreement to declare themselves “nuclear weapon non-use zones,” as a preliminary step to becoming nuclear-weapon-free. It is my strong hope that Japan – which signed the most recent iteration of the joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons even while remaining under the nuclear umbrella of the United States – will reawaken to its responsibility as a country that has experienced atomic weapons attack. Japan should play a leading role in the establishment of such a non-use agreement and non-use zones.

In parallel with such efforts within the existing NPT regime, I would also call upon the international community to fully utilise the process now developing around the successive joint statements to broadly enlist international public opinion and catalyse negotiations for the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.

This could take the form of a treaty expressing the commitment, made in light of the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, to the future relinquishment of reliance on these weapons as a means of achieving security, coupled with separate protocols defining concrete prohibition and verification regimes. Such an approach would mean that even if the entry into force of the separate protocols took time, the treaty would express the clear will of the international community that nuclear weapons have no place in our world.

This coming April 11-12, the Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative will convene in Hiroshima, attended by the foreign ministers of 12 states. From April 28, the NPT Review Conference preparatory committee will meet in New York. These are opportunities for global civil society to arouse international public opinion and to accelerate progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The work of building a world without nuclear weapons signifies more than just the elimination of these horrific weapons. Rather, it is a process by which the people themselves, through their own efforts, take on the challenge of realising a new era of peace and creative coexistence. This is the necessary precondition for a sustainable global society, a world in which all people – above all, the members of future generations – can live in the full enjoyment of their inherent dignity as human beings.

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Feb 21 2013 (IPS)

I believe that most of the world’s citizens would agree that nuclear weapons should be considered inhumane. It is encouraging to see that there is now a growing, if still nascent, movement to outlaw nuclear weapons based on this premise.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

This was highlighted at the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), whose Final Document noted a “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirmed “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law”.

Following this, in May 2012, sixteen countries led by Norway and Switzerland issued a joint statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament.

On March 4-5 this year, an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons will be held in Oslo, Norway. Prior to this conference, on March 2-3, the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will organise a Civil Society Forum there to demonstrate that a treaty banning nuclear weapons is both possible and urgently needed.

There have recently been signs, even within the nuclear-weapon states, of changing attitudes regarding the utility of these weapons. In a speech at Hankuk University in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on Mar. 26, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama stated: “My administration’s nuclear posture recognises that the massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited to today’s threats, including nuclear terrorism.”

Further, a statement adopted at the NATO Summit in May 2012 noted: “The circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.”

Both of these statements point to the lessened centrality of nuclear weapons in national security thinking.

The logic of nuclear weapons possession is also being challenged from a number of other perspectives.

It is estimated that annual aggregate expenditure on nuclear weapons globally is around 105 billion dollars. This makes clear the enormity of the burden placed on societies simply by the continued possession of these weapons. If these financial resources were redirected domestically to health, social welfare and education programmes or to development aid for other countries, the positive impact on people’s lives and dignity would be incalculable.

In April of 2012, important new research on the effects of nuclear war on the environment was announced in the report “Nuclear Famine”. Issued by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), this report predicts that even a relatively small-scale nuclear exchange could cause major climate change and that the impact on countries far-distant from the combatant nations would result in famine affecting more than one billion people.

In view of these developments, I would like to make three proposals to help shape the contours of a new, sustainable society, one in which all people can live in dignity.

First, to make disarmament a key theme of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are under discussion within the United Nations. Specifically, I propose that halving world military expenditures relative to 2010 levels and abolishing nuclear weapons and all other weapons judged inhumane under international law be included as targets for achievement by the year 2030.

Second, to initiate the negotiation process for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, with the goal of agreement on an initial draft by 2015. To this end, the international community must engage in active debate centered on the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons.

Third, to hold an expanded summit toward a nuclear-weapon-free world. The G8 Summit in 2015 — the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — would be an appropriate opportunity for such a summit, which should include the additional participation of other nuclear-weapon states, representatives of the United Nations, as well as members of the five existing Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones and those states which have taken a lead in calling for nuclear abolition.

In this regard, I am encouraged by the following words from Obama’s speech in Korea: “…I believe the U.S. has a unique responsibility to act; ­ indeed, we have a moral obligation. I say this as president of the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons. … Most of all, I say it as a father, who wants my two young daughters to grow up in a world where everything they know and love can’t be instantly wiped out.”

These words express a yearning that cannot be subsumed even after all political elements and security requirements have been taken fully into consideration. It is the statement of a single human being rising above the differences of national interest or ideological stance. Such a way of thinking can help us “untie” the Gordian knot that has too long bound together the ideas of national security and nuclear weapons possession.

There is no place more conducive to considering the full significance of life in the nuclear age than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was seen when the G8 Summit of Lower House Speakers was convened in Hiroshima in 2008. The kind of expanded summit I am calling for would inherit that spirit and solidify momentum toward a world free from nuclear weapons. It would then become the launching point for a larger effort for global disarmament aiming toward the year 2030.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Apr 4 2012 (IPS)

In recent months, the dispute over the nature and intent of the Iranian nuclear development programme has generated increasing tensions throughout the Middle East region. When I consider all that is at stake here, I am reminded of the words of the British historian Arnold Toynbee, who warned that the perils of the nuclear age constituted a “Gordian knot that has to be untied by patient fingers instead of being cut by the sword.”

Amidst growing concerns that these tensions will erupt into armed conflict, I urge the political leaderships in all relevant states to recognise that now is the time to muster the courage of restraint and seek the common ground on which the current impasse can be resolved. The use of military force or other forms of hard power can never produce a lasting solution. Even if it may seem possible to suppress a particular threat, what is left behind is an even more deadly legacy of anger and hatred.

It is a sad constant of international politics that as tensions rise so do the levels of threat and invective that are exchanged. Recall how, when U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev met in Vienna at the height of the 1961 Berlin Crisis, the latter is recorded as saying, “Force will be met by force. If the U.S. wants war, that is its problem. The calamities of a war will be shared equally.”

But we must not lose sight of the fact that, if war breaks out, it is the untold number of ordinary citizens that will bear the brunt of the suffering. This is something that the generations who lived through the wars of the 20th century know from painful experience. In my case, I lost one of my older brothers in battle and we were burned out of our home twice. I retain vivid memories of leading my younger brother, still a young child, by the hand as we fled through the bombs of an air raid. Any use of weapons of mass destruction would magnify and make irreparable this death and mayhem to an unimaginable degree. Nuclear weapons, in particular, must be recognized as weapons of ultimate inhumanity.

In both the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the leaders of the two superpowers finally stepped back from the brink of conflict. In the midst of unbearable tensions, they no doubt saw the devastation that awaited their failure to defuse the situation.

In our present-day situation, we know that a military strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran would be intensely destabilising.

Retaliation would be inevitable, and it is impossible to predict the repercussions in a region now undergoing sweeping political transformation.

Even though the dynamics of international politics seem locked in a spiral of threat and mistrust, we must not ignore the voices of the countless individuals living in the region who desire to see it freed from all nuclear weapons. These can be heard, for example, in research released by the Brookings Institute last December, which found that, by a ratio of two to one, Israelis support an agreement that would make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including Iran and Israel.

The international conference scheduled for this year on establishing a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction is an attempt to respond to the aspirations of the region’s peoples, and all efforts must be made to ensure its success. The elimination of all weapons of mass destruction from the region represents a path toward meeting the common security interests of both Iran and Israel and of the entire region. The efforts of Finland to host this conference have been laudable and I hope that Japan, as a country that has experienced the effects of nuclear weapons in war, will play a positive role in creating the conditions for dialogue.

President Kennedy, having dealt with two potentially apocalyptic crises, once stated: “Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history.” To date, aspirations for a world without nuclear weapons have been fostered and forged through the unrelenting efforts of those who have met and surmounted the trials of crisis. The process that produced the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established the first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a populated region, for example, was given new urgency by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Despite cynical dismissals that such efforts were a waste of time, that there would never be agreement on such a treaty, the negotitors persisted. Today, all 33 states in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the five declared nuclear-weapon states, are parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

In order to resolve the crisis currently hanging over the Middle East, there must be a renewed determination within international society never to abandon dialogue, a deepened conviction that what now seems impossible can indeed be made possible. No matter how daunting the present realities or how treacherous the path forward, we must remember that hope is fostered only through ceaseless, tenacious efforts for peace.

(*) Daisaku Ikeda is a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peacebuilder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

Excerpt:

In recent months, the dispute over the nature and intent of the Iranian nuclear development programme has generated increasing tensions throughout the Middle East region. When I consider all that is at stake here, I am reminded of the words of the British historian Arnold Toynbee, who warned that the perils of the nuclear age constituted a “Gordian knot that has to be untied by patient fingers instead of being cut by the sword.”

Amidst growing concerns that these tensions will erupt into armed conflict, I urge the political leaderships in all relevant states to recognise that now is the time to muster the courage of restraint and seek the common ground on which the current impasse can be resolved. The use of military force or other forms of hard power can never produce a lasting solution. Even if it may seem possible to suppress a particular threat, what is left behind is an even more deadly legacy of anger and hatred.

It is a sad constant of international politics that as tensions rise so do the levels of threat and invective that are exchanged. Recall how, when U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev met in Vienna at the height of the 1961 Berlin Crisis, the latter is recorded as saying, “Force will be met by force. If the U.S. wants war, that is its problem. The calamities of a war will be shared equally.”

But we must not lose sight of the fact that, if war breaks out, it is the untold number of ordinary citizens that will bear the brunt of the suffering. This is something that the generations who lived through the wars of the 20th century know from painful experience. In my case, I lost one of my older brothers in battle and we were burned out of our home twice. I retain vivid memories of leading my younger brother, still a young child, by the hand as we fled through the bombs of an air raid. Any use of weapons of mass destruction would magnify and make irreparable this death and mayhem to an unimaginable degree. Nuclear weapons, in particular, must be recognized as weapons of ultimate inhumanity.

In both the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the leaders of the two superpowers finally stepped back from the brink of conflict. In the midst of unbearable tensions, they no doubt saw the devastation that awaited their failure to defuse the situation.

In our present-day situation, we know that a military strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran would be intensely destabilising.

Retaliation would be inevitable, and it is impossible to predict the repercussions in a region now undergoing sweeping political transformation.

Even though the dynamics of international politics seem locked in a spiral of threat and mistrust, we must not ignore the voices of the countless individuals living in the region who desire to see it freed from all nuclear weapons. These can be heard, for example, in research released by the Brookings Institute last December, which found that, by a ratio of two to one, Israelis support an agreement that would make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including Iran and Israel.

The international conference scheduled for this year on establishing a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction is an attempt to respond to the aspirations of the region’s peoples, and all efforts must be made to ensure its success. The elimination of all weapons of mass destruction from the region represents a path toward meeting the common security interests of both Iran and Israel and of the entire region. The efforts of Finland to host this conference have been laudable and I hope that Japan, as a country that has experienced the effects of nuclear weapons in war, will play a positive role in creating the conditions for dialogue.

President Kennedy, having dealt with two potentially apocalyptic crises, once stated: “Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history.” To date, aspirations for a world without nuclear weapons have been fostered and forged through the unrelenting efforts of those who have met and surmounted the trials of crisis. The process that produced the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established the first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a populated region, for example, was given new urgency by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Despite cynical dismissals that such efforts were a waste of time, that there would never be agreement on such a treaty, the negotiators persisted. Today, all 33 states in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the five declared nuclear-weapon states, are parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

In order to resolve the crisis currently hanging over the Middle East, there must be a renewed determination within international society never to abandon dialogue, a deepened conviction that what now seems impossible can indeed be made possible. No matter how daunting the present realities or how treacherous the path forward, we must remember that hope is fostered only through ceaseless, tenacious efforts for peace.

(*) Daisaku Ikeda is a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peacebuilder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Jul 4 2011 (IPS)

The human spirit has a truly remarkable capacity -the ability to generate hope from the most devastating of crises. This ability to create value can be seen in the response to the earthquake that struck Japan on March 11.

Following the earthquake and tsunami, there has been a tremendous response from people throughout the world in the form of aid and relief, as well as countless outpourings of support, both material and psychological. The Japanese people will never forget this heartfelt response: as we embark on the long path to recovery, it will be with a consciousness of our debt of gratitude to the boundless goodwill of people from all around the world.

The British historian Arnold J. Toynbee is known for his theory of challenge and response. “Civilisations,” he wrote, “come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges.” This struggle to face new challenges is surely certain to persist so long as human history continues.

Confronted by a disaster of unimaginable scale, the Japanese people are searching for ways to get back on their feet and discover appropriate responses to a series of interlinked problems. Indeed, the greater these challenges, the greater the potential to find creative responses that will inspire people everywhere and contribute to the sum of human wisdom.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of such responses is rooted in the strength of human community.

Many of the stories of near-miraculous survival following the earthquake and the tsunami were made possible only through neighbours supporting one another. Furthermore, during the days and weeks after the disaster when the essential lifelines of communications, water, electricity, and gas were disrupted, it was the mutual support of local communities and neighbourhood associations that helped meet the needs and provide a vital human connection for survivors.

I personally know of many individuals who have nobly dedicated themselves to helping others and working toward the recovery of their communities, freely sharing what meagre resources they had and pouring their energy into assisting others, often despite having lost their own loved ones, homes, and livelihoods. One can only be moved to admiration by the sparkling core of humanity that shines through at such times of crisis.

We saw countless such acts of selfless cooperation at our Soka Gakkai community centres in the affected regions, which we opened as evacuation centres immediately after the earthquake.

In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, when the transportation network linking the affected area with Tokyo was severely disrupted, volunteers in Niigata on Japan’s northwestern coast were able to deliver relief supplies using circuitous alternative routes. These volunteers hail from areas that had themselves experienced major earthquakes in 2004 and 2007, and thus were painfully aware of the needs of the survivors. They worked full-out preparing essential supplies such as drinking water, rice balls and other emergency food supplies, generators, fuel, and portable toilets, and were able to deliver them in the shortest possible time. I’ve been told that these volunteers were motivated by a sense of gratitude for the assistance they had received at the time of the Niigata earthquakes: “So many people helped us then, this time it was our turn to do what we can.”

The suffering caused by a major earthquake can be truly staggering. But wherever such tragedies have struck in recent years -the Sumatra earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, the Sichuan earthquake in China in 2008, the Haiti earthquake of 2010- a sense of human solidarity has emerged, a community of brave and dedicated citizens determined to help each other. Such actions, and the spirit behind them, are truly awe-inspiring. I know I am not alone in seeing in this a genuine goodness that flows from the very heart of our humanity.

Obviously relief operations mounted by the authorities must be central to rescue and reconstruction activities. But at the same time, it is well documented that it is often the cooperative actions of local communities that can deliver a critical lifeline to people who have been worst impacted and remain vulnerable.

As reconstruction efforts continue, the spiritual aspect of care and support becomes ever more crucial, and it is the human network of individuals interacting, treasuring, and encouraging each other every day at the grassroots level that plays the key role in this. In that sense, genuine solidarity among people can provide a foundation for the kind of human security that cannot be shattered even by the direst of calamities.

Our response to the disaster must be to create enduring value out of tragedy. This means coming to a deeper understanding of the true nature of human happiness. This in turn will reshape the way humankind envisions the future in all its aspects, including the critical area of energy policy.

Just as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 forced a rethinking of many issues, the accidents at the Fukushima nuclear power plant are having a profound impact on people’s views and attitudes the world over.

Although the concrete options available to each country will vary, there can be no doubt that a new current in human history is being born. This is seen in the aggressive promotion of renewable energy sources, the development of energy-efficient technologies and the more careful management of resources generally.

Reaching the goal of a sustainable society will require that we embrace a way of looking at the world -a system of values- that can rein in the runaway excesses of human greed, wisely redirecting these impulses toward higher purposes.

I hope that we will develop a response to the present disaster that pulls together humanity’s wisdom as we seek the recovery of our livelihoods, the recovery of our society, the recovery of our civilisation, and underpinning all of these, a robust recovery of the human heart. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Daisaku Ikeda is a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peacebuilder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). For details of Soka Gakkai’s response to the March 11 earthquake, visit www.sgi.org.

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
BERLIN, Jun 20 2010 (IPS)

A meeting called for 2012 on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons is likely to run into difficulties, says Daisaku Ikeda, president of the Buddhist association Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

“The issues involved are complex and not likely to be resolved through the convening of a single conference,” Ikeda tells IPS in an email interview.

“In fact, given the history of war and violence and the deep-seated animosities in the region, it will be anything but easy even to bring the conference together. But the current situation is clearly intolerable and could dramatically worsen at any moment. For these reasons, there is a need to develop avenues of dialogue and to find ways to start defusing tensions.”

The treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones in Central Asia and Africa last year are “an important source of hope,” he says.

Following are excerpts from the interview:

Q: Has the conference (the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons held in May that also called for a conference on the Middle East) paved the path for the world to move towards nuclear abolition? Or is it just promises and platitudes? A: As you mention, people are now trying to assess the outcome of the Review Conference and there are a wide range of views on this. It was regrettable, for example, that key differences between nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states could not be overcome. As a result, the proposal in the draft report that would have required the start of negotiations on nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework didn’t find its way into the final document. Beyond this, many other issues were left unresolved.

Still, however, the kinds of divisions that paralyzed the 2005 NPT Review Conference were avoided, and the final document includes specific action plans. To me this is clear evidence of the growing awareness among governments that we cannot waste the opportunity to renew progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons.

Q: What would you describe as significant achievements? A: I think the conference had three particularly noteworthy achievements. First, after affirming that all states need to make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons, the final document refers to, for the first time ever, proposals for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC).

Second, the conference acknowledged that the only absolute assurance against the threat posed by nuclear weapons is their abolition. And third, the conference called for countries to observe International Humanitarian Law in light of the catastrophic effects of any use of nuclear weapons.

Calls from non-nuclear-weapon states and NGOs for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would comprehensively ban these weapons of mass destruction have until now been rejected on grounds that this was premature, or that an NWC was ill-matched to the realities of international relations.

As a result, it was never directly taken up in international negotiations, and this makes the reference to an NWC in the final document of the NPT Review Conference all the more significant.

I believe this was realised by the coming together of a range of actors, starting with the president of the review conference, relevant UN agencies such as the Office for Disarmament Affairs, and governments committed to nuclear abolition, and also the passionate, determined efforts of many civil society organisations. The youth members of the Soka Gakkai, for example, collected more than 2.2 million signatures in Japan in support of an NWC, presenting these to the president of the conference and the UN Secretary- General.

Q: Where do we go from here? A: We need to build on this momentum. I urge the early start of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, with an eye on the next Review Conference in 2015, which will mark the 70th anniversary of the use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are many obstacles to be overcome, but I am convinced that the time is ripe for the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Two principles given voice by statements in the final document make this perfectly clear. “The conference reaffirms and recognises that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons….”

The second is: “The conference expresses its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and reaffirms the need for all states at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”

Whereas inter-governmental debate on the nuclear issue has often been framed in terms of political or military logic, this gives clear priority to humanitarian values and the imperative to respect the inherent dignity of life.

Q: In what particular ways are nuclear weapons a humanitarian issue? A: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shared their experiences at the review conference, urging nuclear abolition. The suffering wrought by the use of nuclear weapons is not limited to the immediate aftermath. Nuclear weapons are the ultimately inhumane weapon, whose impacts continue to cause pain, and assault the very foundation of human dignity for generations.

(This report comes in partnership with IDN-InDepthNews)

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Jan 20 2010 (IPS)

The smiling faces and laughing voices of children are the true measure of a peaceful and healthy society, much more so than any statistical indices.

In 1996, I visited Costa Rica to attend the opening ceremony for the SGI’s ‘Nuclear Arms: Threat to Humanity’ exhibition, which was being held in the capital, San Jose. With both President Figueres Olsen and former President Arias Sanchez in attendance, a solemn performance of Costa Rica’s national anthem began.

Adjacent to the venue was a Children’s Museum, and throughout the ceremony we could hear the lively voices of children playing and laughing, calling out to their friends and running around excitedly. The partition between the two venues didn’t reach the ceiling, so the noise made by the children resounded through the room unhindered.

Soon my turn came to take the stage. The organisers of the ceremony appeared increasingly concerned as children’s heads peered through gaps in the partition, but my heart filled with joy. ‘The lively voices and playful exuberance of these children,’ I commented, ‘is surely a true embodiment of peace. This is the key to overcoming the threat of nuclear arms. This is where hope lies!’

I heard later that the building where the exhibition was being held used to be a prison, but it had been repainted in a bright yellow and converted into a science and culture centre. This reminded me of Victor Hugo’s assertion that he who opens the doors to schools closes the doors of prisons.

There is no such thing as a person who is bad from birth; we all have the seeds of goodness within. The work of nurturing these seeds and bringing them to fruition is the purpose of learning and education. Education is not simply the transfer of knowledge, nor simply the development of specific talents. Authentic education is aimed at nurturing the complete personality, including both character and intellect; it is the great enterprise of passing on the fullness of humanity from the past into the future, ensuring its development.

The pioneering American educator John Dewey once stated: ‘To the growth of the child all studies are subservient. Not knowledge or information, but self-realisation, is the goal.’ Children need to believe in their own potential and soar into the limitless skies as they embrace their mission in life.

It is not just schools and the home that support this; this is a task of the local community and of society as a whole. Based on this belief, I have often called for a reorientation of values: from the idea that education should serve the needs of society to the idea that society itself should be dedicated to the cause of learning.

I am a member of the generation that directly experienced the horrors that result when education is subverted to false aims. When I was young, the militarists who controlled Japan sought to inculcate, not just in schools but through every available means, the idea that offering up one’s life in service to the state was the highest path in life. Aged thirteen, I even tried to enrol in the Naval Aviation Corps like many of my friends. But my father, who had already seen my four elder brothers drafted and sent to the front, opposed this so vehemently that I gave up on my idea. Countless precious young lives were sacrificed to an educational system which placed utmost priority on serving the machinery of the state.

My own efforts to create educational opportunities that are solidly focused on the happiness of children grow out of this experience. Regrettably, the postwar Japanese education system was focused on producing foot soldiers useful to Japan’s economic growth. This process of forcing children through an education system designed to serve the interests of the state, a system that turns them into means and not ends, is entirely unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. Instead, we must base education on respect for life and a humane philosophy: the commitment never to build one’s happiness on the suffering of others.

A loss of awareness of the interrelatedness and inseparability of our own lives and those of others -human or otherwise- inevitably gives rise to the kind of egoism that underlies the increasing inequalities in society and propels the processes of environmental destruction. There are numerous examples of educational projects that seek to sensitise people to our interrelatedness. For example, as part of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (2005-14), efforts are being made to encourage young people to get out of the classroom and interact with the world. These initiatives, which include community art projects and the revitalisation of local public spaces, enable children to experience their interconnections with the world around them and develop a rich capacity for empathy.

As a civil society organisation and a proponent of ESD, the SGI is engaged in grassroots activities to raise awareness and support the decade. Creating an educational environment that instills a spirit of empathy with other people and with nature would be the greatest treasure today’s adults can bequeath to the future.

A firm spiritual foundation is the key to constructing an enduring culture of peace. If education flourishes, society, too, will prosper and humankind will advance.

Education is not something distant from us; our schools, our homes and our communities provide myriad opportunities for strengthening our shared capacity for learning and teaching. The inherent creativity of life is brought to flower by working for other people and contributing to society, striving to learn and take meaningful action. We all have the potential to become wiser and stronger, to bring forth the brilliance that exists in the depths of life. It is up to each of us to demonstrate this truth. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Daisaku Ikeda, a Japanese philosopher and peace-builder, is president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) grassroots Buddhist movement (www.sgi.org) and founder of Soka University and Soka University of America.

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
BERLIN, Sep 29 2009 (IPS)

A world free of nuclear weapons is no longer utopia – it is a concrete possibility, says Daisaku Ikeda, president of the Buddhist association Soka Gokkai International (SGI).

Daisaku Ikeda Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

Ikeda formulated a five-point plan early September aimed at nuclear abolition.

"Through my proposal, I want to encourage the leaders not only of the nuclear-weapon states but also of those countries that rely on the nuclear weapons of others for their security to consider the present and future danger presented by nuclear weapons," the SGI president says in a joint interview with IPS and IDN-InDepthNews.

Following are excerpts from the interview conducted by email after the UN Security Council session on nuclear abolition Sep. 24 chaired by U.S. President Barack Obama.

IPS: President Obama spelt out his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons last April in Prague. However, the U.S. President expressed doubts in his speech in Prague that a nuke-free world would be ushered in in "our lifetime". Would you share that view? In your proposal you ask "the world's people to clearly manifest their will for the outlawing of nuclear weapons and to establish, by the year 2015, the international norm that will serve as the foundation for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC)." DAISAKU IKEDA: We stand today at a critical juncture, one that will determine whether or not humankind can make genuine progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Rather than asking ourselves whether nuclear abolition is possible, we need to ask ourselves what we can do to make this a reality in our time.

Through my proposal, I want to encourage the leaders not only of the nuclear-weapon states but also those countries that rely on the nuclear weapons of others for their security to consider the present and future danger presented by nuclear weapons. At the same time, I urge that we all understand that the real "enemy" is not nuclear weapons, nor the states that possess or would develop them.

The real enemy is the way of thinking that justifies nuclear weapons. It is our readiness to see others eliminated when they stand in the way of the fulfilment of our desires and ambitions. This was the underlying message of the declaration, issued some 52 years ago by my predecessor and mentor, second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda, calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

As you note, President Obama has expressed his determination to work for a world without nuclear weapons. At the same time, he has questioned whether this goal will be realised in our lifetime. If the leaders of the nuclear-weapon states and of all countries take concrete action on the basis of a shared sense of responsibility and – most importantly – if there is consistent pressure from the world's people acting in solidarity, what might seem impossible now can certainly be made possible.

The five-year period to 2015, and in particular the eight-month period to next year's NPT (non-proliferation treaty) review conference, will be decisive. To establish a solid beachhead for a world without nuclear weapons, we need to expand global popular commitment towards this goal.

IPS: The document released Sep. 8 – 'Building Global Solidarity Toward Nuclear Abolition' – points out that the path to the adoption of an NWC is likely to be a difficult one, not least because the entrenched perceptions of military security stand in the way. Do you see any realistic possibility of "humanitarian" ideals taking an upper hand over military and money-making ideologies? DI: In recent years, we have seen important, groundbreaking examples of humanitarian ideals surmounting military logic and narrowly defined national interests to bring new disarmament accords into existence. I am referring of course to the treaties banning landmines and cluster weapons. Both were realised through international campaigns based on the collaborative efforts of NGOs working together with governments seriously committed to disarmament.

I am calling for the establishment of a clear international norm condemning nuclear weapons. This will provide the basis for a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting these most inhumane of all weapons. It is clear that the way forward to an NWC will not be easy. But there are signs of new awareness among the world's political leaders that are cause for hope.

The first is that we now hear more voices calling for nuclear abolition from a realistic assessment of the dangers they pose. These include former high- level officials of the nuclear-weapon states. I think the confluence of this "realist" approach with more traditional peace and humanitarian antinuclear perspectives presents an important opportunity to make progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons.

The second is the fact that, in the 64 years since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have never been used. This points to the steadily solidifying awareness that nuclear weapons are essentially unusable for military purposes, even if we include the implicit threat underlying deterrence as a form of "use".

I think this understanding is shared to a greater or lesser degree by the political leaders of the nuclear-weapon states. In order to outlaw nuclear weapons, we will need to raise the visibility of the issue internationally to a far higher degree than was the case even for the movements to ban landmines and cluster weapons. Civil society needs to come together to create a popular groundswell for nuclear abolition.

IPS: The document calls upon the five declared nuclear-weapon states to announce their commitment to "a shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons." What would you expect such a shared vision to look like? And what distinct outcome would you expect from the NPT review conference next May? DI: Vision gives birth to action. This is why it is epoch-making that the United States has offered a vision of nuclear abolition. What is important now is for all the nuclear-weapon states to earnestly debate the significance of this vision and to find ways of sharing it. A shared vision provides the common foundation for taking the next concrete steps forward.

In this regard, there are signs of progress. A few days ago, on Sep.24, the UN Security Council meeting on non-proliferation and disarmament adopted a resolution expressing the resolve to realise a world without nuclear weapons. In light of the fact that all five of the nuclear-weapon states participated as permanent members of the Security Council and that Security Council resolutions are legally binding, this is extremely important.

If this resolution can serve as an impetus to the nuclear-weapon states to start taking concrete and concerted action, they will be taking the lead towards the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Exercising this kind of leadership is their solemn obligation under the NPT. At the same time, it is clearly the only way to encourage the countries presently outside the NPT regime to move towards nuclear arms reduction and elimination. The solidarity that arises from this kind of responsible action will also accelerate efforts to respond to such global challenges as poverty and climate change.

Perhaps the greatest single reason to expect the nuclear-weapon states to play this kind of role is the emergence in recent years of the realistic possibility of terrorism using nuclear weapons. Needless to say, deterrence is not possible – meaningless in fact – against this type of threat. The greatest and indeed only defence against the threat of nuclear terror is the strictly verified abolition of nuclear weapons. Only this will obviate the danger that nuclear weapons will be stolen or nuclear weapons technologies leaked.

In my proposal, I urge the five nuclear-weapon states to undertake the following three commitments at next year's NPT review conference: 1) a nuclear weapons moratorium; 2) substantively enhanced transparency regarding their nuclear capabilities; and 3) deliberations on the absolute minimum number of nuclear weapons on the path to abolition. Of course, there is no need to wait until next year to commit to this path.

A moratorium on further development or modernisation of their nuclear arsenals in particular would be a critical step towards nuclear abolition. From the perspective of the world's citizens, there is no possible justification for maintaining the capacity to destroy the world dozens of times over, much less for further refining of this capability through technological development. Agreement to this would certainly have an important positive impact on the discourse surrounding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT).

IPS: The document also calls upon the UN to establish a panel of experts on nuclear abolition, strengthening collaborative relations with civil society in the disarmament process. How would you evaluate UN's present relations with the civil society in the field of nuclear disarmament? What role do you envisage for SGI in particular and the civil society in general in achieving a world free of nuclear weapons? DI: The world has changed greatly since the United Nations was established in 1945. In recent years, there has been an increased appreciation of the need to heed the voices of the world's citizens. Disarmament involves issues that are of central concern to states. If the specialised knowledge and communicative capacities of civil society can be fully utilised in this field, it would greatly advance the cause of disarmament. I think the fact that the annual conference of NGOs affiliated with the UN's Department of Public Information, convened earlier this month in Mexico City, for the first time ever took up disarmament as its theme symbolises this trend.

Nor can we overlook the increasing importance that has been accorded to the concept of "human security" in recent years. As civil society has been clearly pointing out, there are critical gaps in traditional conceptualisations of national security – namely, adequate consideration of the impact of political decisions in the lives of people. There are signs that governments are starting to look to civil society as partners in developing and implementing new modalities of security. The same can be said for the United Nations.

In my proposal, I stressed the importance of establishing a clear international norm for nuclear abolition, and bringing together the power of ordinary citizens to this end. I think civil society has a special role to play in resolving issues that involve the complex interplay of national interests and are therefore not amenable to solution solely through state or government initiatives. It is crucial that civil society provide opportunities for people to become more aware and awakened to their capacity to be agents of change. People who share the common aspiration for a world free of nuclear weapons need to come together and coordinate their efforts based on a deepened sense of solidarity.

Drawing from a tradition of antinuclear activism reaching back more than five decades, the SGI will continue to work to promote this kind of empowerment within and through civil society. We will collaborate with other NGOs to facilitate the development of a broad-based network for nuclear abolition.

(*This interview jointly with IDN-InDepthNews is part of an IPS-Soka Gakkai International (SGI) project on nuclear abolition.)

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Mar 16 2009 (IPS)

Crying out in opposition to war and nuclear weapons is neither emotionalism nor self-pity. It is the highest expression of human reason based on an unflinching commitment to the dignity of life.

In the quest for global peace and in the hope of stimulating discussion of various critical issues, I have been authoring an annual peace proposal since 1983. This year, again, the realisation of a world free from nuclear weapons is a principal theme.

A first crucial step in the process of ridding the world of nuclear weapons is to hold a US-Russia Summit on nuclear disarmament at the earliest possible moment.

Newly-inaugurated US president Barack Obama stated during his presidential campaign last year, “We need to work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material.”

Meanwhile, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev last October stressed the “exceptional importance” his government places on concluding a new, legally-binding Russian-American agreement to replace START 1 (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which expires this December.

It is essential that the heads of state of these two nations conduct frank face-to-face dialogue to move the disarmament agenda forward. Between them, the US and Russia account for 95 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal, and the significance of a resumption of bilateral talks on nuclear disarmament will be immense.

These two states have a historic opportunity to show strong leadership by setting targets for nuclear warhead reduction to replace START 1, ensuring a robust verification regime, and initiating talks on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). It is also important for the US to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

We must never forget that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not give the five nuclear-weapon states the right to retain their special status indefinitely. Building on a US-Russia consensus, a five-state summit for nuclear disarmament with the participation of the UN secretary-general should be convened regularly to draw up a roadmap of specific measures to fulfill their disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT. Such good faith efforts on the part of the nuclear-weapon states are essential if confidence in the NPT is to be restored. Only then will it be possible to win the trust of countries outside of the NPT regime and obtain commitments on freezing and dismantling nuclear weapon development programmes.

Alongside such steps, global society, working through the United Nations, should press for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) -a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons, including their development and testing. The only effective means of protecting ourselves from the threat of nuclear weapons is to abolish them within a legal framework capable of ensuring that they are never produced again.

A Model NWC has already been circulated as a UN document. In an unprecedented move for a UN secretary-general, last year Ban Ki-moon added his voice, urging governments to consider an NWC.

Public support for nuclear abolition is gathering momentum: a poll conducted in 2008 in 21 countries, including the nuclear-weapon states, showed that on average 76 percent of respondents favored an international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons. This is highly significant as it was the strong grassroots support of civil society that drove the groundbreaking campaigns for the Mine Ban Treaty in 1997 and the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008.

It is necessary for the people of the world to join in solidarity to “lay siege” to the very idea of nuclear weapons. The Global Zero campaign launched in December 2008 is also focused on the broad-based mobilisation of international public opinion to achieve the elimination of these horrific weapons.

In 2007, Soka Gakkai International (SGI), an international grassroots Buddhist movement, initiated a People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition campaign, including exhibitions, seminars led by youth, and the creation of a five-language DVD documenting the experiences of atomic bomb survivors. Rooted in a commitment to human security, we will continue to develop this campaign in collaboration with other NGOs active in the disarmament field.

The SGI has been campaigning for nuclear abolition for more than half a century. This movement, originating in Japan, the first country to experience the full horrors of nuclear weapons, is founded on the belief that they are a manifestation of the darkest impulses within human nature, an absolute evil that threatens our collective right to live and undermines the very possibility of human dignity.

We need a revolution in consciousness on the most fundamental level -one that reawakens our humanity- if we are to challenge and defeat the myth that security can be built on the threat of mass and perhaps mutual destruction.

The journey may seem long and daunting, but we must remember that each courageous step can drive a process of transformation, ultimately changing the course of history. I urge people everywhere to raise their voices against nuclear weapons, to unleash a groundswell of dialogue for peace that will define our age. This is the most assured strategy, the truest path to peace. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Daisaku Ikeda is a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peace-builder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) grassroots Buddhist movement (www.sgi.org).The full text of Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal can be viewed at http://www.daisakuikeda.org/

Excerpt:

Our world today faces unprecedented problems, for a start, the current environmental and financial crises. Without global solidarity and a conscious commitment to peaceful coexistence both within human society and with the systems of life that support us, it is becoming clear that there is no future for us. We have reached a point where we each need to strive in our own unique way to make the greatest possible contribution to the realisation of human rights.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda

“Human rights are the essence of the reason and spiritual values that characterise humanity, the manifestation of the most noble qualities of the human being.”

These are the profound words of Austregesilo de Athayde, president of the Brazilian Academy of Letters, one of the active participants in the process of drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The principles voiced in the Declaration, adopted sixty years ago, have since been codified in the form of various international human rights instruments and have further been enshrined in the constitutions of many countries. The Declaration stands as a powerful beacon in humanity’s struggle for human rights.

However, the reality of today is that people in many places around the world are deprived of their basic human rights and freedoms and struggle under the heel of oppression. In addition to armed conflicts in various regions, extreme poverty, and shortages of food, drinking water, and medical supplies claim nearly 24,000 lives every day.

In East Asian tradition, one’s 60th birthday signifies the completion of a cycle of life, an opportunity to reflect and reassess. What is important now is to heighten people’s awareness of human rights, to return once more to the spirit in which the UDHR was created and ensure that people around the world deepen their commitment to bringing human rights to life and make them a central priority of the 21st century.

The core of the UDHR consists of “first-generation human rights” -which are essentially related to civil and political rights- and “second-generation human rights” -economic and social rights. Since the UDHR was promulgated, and with the achievement of independence by countries in Africa and Asia in the second half of the 20th century, increasing attention has been given to “third-generation human rights” -the so-called “solidarity rights”, which include the right to development, to a safe and healthy environment, to peace, and to access humanity’s common heritage.

Two trends become apparent as we review the history of human rights.

The first is a shift from a reactive approach of protecting people from human rights abuses to a more proactive approach of engagement in realising a better life and a better society. The second is a shift from a focus on the rights of individuals in isolation to a broader, more inclusive emphasis on human solidarity and creative coexistence with the environment.

Ultimately, the promise of human rights can only be fulfilled through the development of a rich spirituality rooted in a respect for the lives of others and heartfelt concern for the natural environment.

It is by taking action for the sake of others, for the sake of society, and for the sake of future generations that human beings can grasp the significance of our having been born in this world and can experience genuine fulfilment and happiness. This is also the true significance of Athayde’s statement.

According to the Buddhist understanding of interdependence, nothing in this world can exist in isolation. We exist within a web of mutually supporting and sustaining relationships. In a sense, humanity is one family, interconnected through the “ocean of life” that is the Planet Earth. Any attempt to build personal happiness or societal flourishing on the suffering of others cannot, in the long term, succeed.

More than 100 years ago, the first president of the Soka Gakkai (Value-creating Society) movement, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-1944) -the founder of Soka education who was imprisoned for his opposition to Japan’s militarist regime and died in prison- surveyed the development of international society and called for the world to move from military, political, and economic forms of competition to an age of “humanitarian competition”. This may be understood as a call for a change in our sense of values, to a striving for the welfare and happiness of both the self and others.

Rosa Parks, the mother of human rights in the US, once spoke of the advice she received from her mother: “My mother taught me self-respect. She said, ‘There’s no law that says people have to suffer.” She stressed it was important not only to respect others, but to be the kind of person other people respect.

Contributing to others, working for the sake of others, is not a matter of duty. It is not simply a matter of morality. It is the highest pinnacle of our lives as humans. As can be strongly affirmed by mothers around the world who cherish life, to be able to contribute to the happiness of others is, indeed, a human right.

Contributing to others opens the path of greater value than the quest for material possessions. This is the path toward the flourishing and blooming of the fathomless world of the human heart. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Daisaku Ikeda is a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peace-builder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) grassroots Buddhist movement (www.sgi.org).

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Oct 21 2008 (IPS)

The fundamental avenue for resolving the many challenges of today\’s world is maximising the potential of the UN, the framework of solidarity that was born out of the tragic experience of two world wars, writes Daisaku Ikeda, a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peace-builder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) grassroots Buddhist movement. In this article, Ikeda writes that to function in the 21st century the UN must be supported by three pillars that transcend national borders: a shared sense of purpose, a shared sense of responsibility, and shared action. The author writes that it is the creative engagement and innovativeness of young people around the world that holds the key to breaking existing molds and affirming these principles. Steps should be taken to enhance the status of youth within the structures of the UN. The world\’s youth increasingly have a sense of global identity. They are united by a common concern for the fate of our planet, and are connected and networked through new communications technologies.

His words go beyond an explanation of the principle of the lever. They indicate confidence in the potentialities of humankind, an assertion that, whatever crises we face, humans have without fail the wisdom to find a solution.

The metaphor of Archimedes and the lever was famously cited by US President John F. Kennedy in his 1963 address to the United Nations General Assembly:

“My fellow inhabitants of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of Nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.”

The UN provides us with “a place to stand” for the great challenge of moving the Earth, using our commitment to the welfare of all humankind as a lever.

Our world today is weighed down by a bewildering range of global issues — from climate change, economic crisis, poverty and wealth disparities, to terrorism and food shortages. How do we begin to untangle this complex of interwoven problems?

I believe that the fundamental avenue for resolving these challenges is maximising the potential of the UN, the framework of solidarity that was born out of the tragic experience of two world wars.

What alternative site is there for pooling our resources, for transforming our way of thinking from the pursuit of narrow national goals to working together for the benefit of humanity?

This planet does not exist to serve the interests of any particular state. Rather, each state exists to contribute to the common interests of the planet. There is a great need for all nations to reaffirm this self-evident truth.

Of course, the UN faces numerous problems. If it is to fulfil its promise, it needs to be powerfully revitalised and rejuvenated.

To function in the 21st century the UN must be supported by three pillars that transcend national borders: a shared sense of purpose, a shared sense of responsibility, and shared action.

I believe it is the creative engagement and innovativeness of young people around the world that holds the key to breaking existing molds and affirming these principles. The world’s youth increasingly have a sense of global identity. They are united by a common concern for the fate of our planet, and are connected and networked through new communications technologies.

Young people under 24, as defined by the UN as “youth and “children” now constitute nearly 50 percent of the world’s population. Youth represent a source of limitless promise and potential for change.

If we neglect the issues facing us today, it is the next generation that will have to face the tragic consequences. No one has a greater right to speak out. And it is the special privilege of youth to rise beyond the narrow limits of short-term gain, to burn with the fervour of justice and strive toward long-term goals.

I believe it is vitally important that we establish further structures for the active participation of young people in UN deliberations and in the activities carried out by its specialised agencies around the world.

Participation in decision-making is one of the key priority areas of the UN’s agenda on youth. This year as many as 14 countries included youth representatives in their delegations to the General Assembly, a sign of hope and an acknowledgement of the valuable perspectives youth can bring. Such initiatives should be encouraged and expanded.

I would like to propose that steps be taken to enhance the status of youth within the structures of the UN. At present, there is a “focal point for youth” within the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) that handles issues related to youth. This could be upgraded into an Office for Youth. Another suggestion would be for the appointment of a Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, or of a UN High Representative for Youth.

In recent years, there has been an increasing stress on the participation and role of youth at international conferences and meetings organised by the UN, as well as the Annual DPI/NGO Conference.

I would also like to support the strengthening of the annual Youth Assembly, which brings together representatives of the world’s youth, so that its deliberations feed directly into the UN General Assembly. More opportunities must be created for young people to bring their concerns to the attention of the world’s leaders.

I have faith in young people. They alone possess the spirited drive and energy, the creative inspiration to build something new, to envisage and construct a better future for themselves, to take action to overcome the crises that face us. We must draw out this power and wisdom, encourage it, cherish it.

Young people are the driving force who can break through any stalemate and open up new possibilities for humanity, redirecting our world toward peace. We will all gain from enabling them to use the UN as “a place to stand”. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
TOKYO, Aug 4 2008 (IPS)

There has never been a time when it was more important for us to inspire each other by learning from our differences or holding a creative dialogue of the wise, writes Daisaku Ikeda, a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peace-builder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) grassroots Buddhist movement. Common to all of the thinkers and leaders from various fields and nationalities with whom I have engaged in dialogue over the years is an earnest prayer and deep determination to see the 21st century become a century of peace and dialogue, in contrast to the century of war and violence that was the 20th. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot rise above the divisive crises that confront our contemporary world. Dialogue is the surest path to peace. And it is a path open to all of us, starting from wherever we are, starting now. Dialogue is an adventure, a means of discovering the uniqueness, mystery, and familiarity of humanity. It is the wellspring of ceaseless and unimpeded value creation.

More than 2,000 years ago, an Indian Buddhist named Nagasena was summoned to engage in a dialogue with King Milinda, the Hellenic monarch of a kingdom in Northwest India. At the outset, Nagasena faced the king and asked: Highness, when you conduct dialogue, do you speak as a wise man, or do you speak as a monarch?

Nagasena’s words cut to the heart of the king’s dogmatic arrogance as a supreme ruler. His question was a way of insisting that they explore the truth together on an equal basis, as two human beings who would learn from each other in a dialogue of the wise.

This encounter opened King Milinda’s eyes, prompting him to set aside his pride and dedicate himself instead to the development of human wisdom. The frank exchange of ideas between these two resulted in a meeting of East and West, a merging of the finest points of classical Hellenic thought and Indian philosophy, with an enduring impact on the spiritual history of humankind.

This dramatic example of dialogue contains lessons that should be heeded by the leaders of the world today. There has never been a time when it was more important for us to inspire each other by learning from our differences, or when we have had such need for a creative dialogue of the wise.

The G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit held in Japan this July saw a record number of participating countries – twenty-two. The heads of government of the eight original nations were joined at the negotiating table for expanded meetings on climate change and development issues by the heads of government of some of the other countries on the front lines of these issues.

Setting aside the concrete outcome of these meetings, I feel this expansion of the summit process is of great significance. Indeed, I have long called for wider participation in these summits as I believe this is a crucial element in the creation of a civilisation predicated on dialogue. The surest way to benefit humanity – and the entire planet – is to expand a network of dialogue grounded in a wider sense of community and a shared responsibility for the future.

The mark of wisdom lies, more than anything else, in the ability to listen. Specifically, faced as we are with a multitude of pressing global issues, it is essential to make every effort to listen to the opinions of people whose position is different from our own, especially the more vulnerable, the so-called voiceless: to corral the wisdom of all people.

At the same time, it is the mark of the wise to exercise great perseverance. Where progress is not smooth, we need the wisdom to seek out realistic common ground and the determination to continue dialogue, come what may.

I am reminded of the Reykjavik Summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1986. Effectively, their negotiations ended in stalemate. But at the press conference following the summit, Gorbachev refused to concede that the talks had broken down, stating they had been a first step toward further negotiations. This influenced the Americans to adopt a similar stance, prompting a reappraisal and a more positive, forward-looking approach. History shows that this strong determination to engage in dialogue contributed, in a quiet yet profound way, to the process that ultimately brought the Cold War to an end.

When, some years later, I met with Gorbachev, there were many who questioned whether a meeting between a Buddhist and the leader of a communist superpower could generate any meaningful outcome.

During our meeting, we discussed the memories we both shared of the misery and cruelty of war that we had experienced when young, agreeing that our generation could be defined as the children of war. Having located this common ground, we talked about our shared determination to extract meaningful lessons for the future.

Whatever our ethnicity, whatever our religion, we all have families we love, and there is a future we all want to protect. And no human being can escape the eternal rhythms of life: birth, aging, sickness, death. When we are grounded in this most fundamental perspective of the commonality of our lives, we can rise above any differences and without fail achieve empathy and dialogue.

Common to all of the thinkers and leaders from various fields and nationalities with whom I have engaged in dialogue over the years is an earnest prayer and deep determination to see the 21st century become a century of peace and dialogue, in contrast to the century of war and violence that was the 20th.

Dialogue is not a simplistic assertion of one’s own position, nor is it necessarily about bringing others to one’s point of view. Dialogue succeeds when it is grounded in respect for the other’s life, when it’s propelled by a determination to learn when confronted with differences in personality and perspective.

In the Buddhist scriptures there is a beautiful passage that reads: When we bow to a mirror, the figure in the mirror bows back to us in reverence.

Whether it is between individuals or between civilisations, if one is too proud and begrudges the act of dialogue, if one ceases to learn, there can be no growth, no progress. A civilisation predicated on dialogue is a civilisation predicated on learning, on growth.

In stark contrast, the failure of dialogue promises only the division of humanity by egoism and mistrust, and an ever-deepening cycle of hatred and violence.

The British historian Arnold Toynbee was convinced that dialogue was the key to finding human responses to the challenges of history. He once declared: Of all human phenomena, the one for which no set pattern in fact exists is the field of encounter and contact between one personality and another. It is from such encounter and contact that truly new creativity arises.

There is absolutely no reason why we cannot rise above the divisive crises that confront our contemporary world. Dialogue is the surest path to peace. And it is a path open to all of us, starting from wherever we are, starting now. Dialogue is an adventure, a means of discovering the uniqueness, mystery, and familiarity of humanity. It is the wellspring of ceaseless and unimpeded value creation. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 1 2008 (IPS)

As citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are painfully reminded of the horrors of atomic bombings that devastated the two Japanese cities in August 1945, one of the country's most influential peace organisations is intensifying its longstanding efforts for nuclear disarmament.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

"We need to remind people that, even when these weapons are not actually used, they exact an enormous cost in the form of monetary, technological and human resources consumed to develop, deploy and maintain them," said Ikeda, who is also a Buddhist philosopher, author and peace proponent.

The city of Hiroshima was bombed by the United States on Aug. 6, 1945, followed by the bombing of the city of Nagasaki three days later.

As the city commemorates the harrowing event next week, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba says Hiroshima is currently one of the key campaigners, along with Mayors for Peace, for a 2020 vision on nuclear disarmament: a proposal to end nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

In an interview with IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen, SGI's Dr. Ikeda said that in the 63 years since the end of World War II, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people who directly experienced the horrors of atomic war, have continued to raise their voices and speak out to remind the world of the dire threat posed by nuclear weapons.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

IPS: How supportive is the Japanese government of this campaign? And how confident are you that this campaign will make any significant impact on nuclear disarmament when all others have failed?

DI: In terms of impediments to nuclear disarmament, the lack of political will among the nuclear weapons states is of course critical. But at the same time, I feel strongly that a lack of interest, a weakened sense of urgency among the world's people, is also a key factor. I believe the Vision 2020 Campaign is a direct outgrowth of the powerful, irrepressible sense of responsibility that survivors of the atomic bombings feel toward future generations. Many members of the Soka Gakkai in these two cities have dedicated themselves to conveying the horrific cruelty of these weapons to the future through publications and other activities.

The Hokkaido Toyako G8 Summit (of the world's eight most industrialised nations) held in July issued a declaration that included clear and specific references to the need for nuclear disarmament. This was the first statement of its kind from this body (which includes the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Russia and Japan). As host country, Japan has a particular mission and responsibility to lead the way toward nuclear disarmament.

In order to revive and re-energise efforts for nuclear disarmament, we need to challenge the persistent notion that nuclear weapons are a "necessary evil." We need to remind people that, even when these weapons are not actually used, they exact an enormous cost in the form of monetary, technological and human resources consumed to develop, deploy and maintain them. We need to revive a commonsense awareness of the folly of this choice. To this end, it is crucial that ordinary people continue to speak out through such vehicles as the Vision 2020 Campaign.

IPS: What is your reaction to sceptics who say that nuclear disarmament is an unreachable goal – considering also the fact that the world meekly accepted three more nuclear powers, India, Pakistan and Israel, in the last three decades?

DI: The temptation to give in to hopelessness is certainly there. But we can't afford to do so, because the current situation is untenable. If we stop to think about it, it is clear that possessing nuclear weapons only intensifies mutual mistrust and suspicion. They heighten tensions and actually increase the threats to national security in interstate relations.

At the same time, it is impossible to imagine terrorist groups being deterred by nuclear weapons. For these reasons, relying on nuclear deterrence to achieve security objectives in today's world is a dubious proposition at best. We need to approach this issue from the perspective of what might be called a new realism.

Think of the states that were either developing, or already possessed, nuclear weapons but gave them up because they decided that possessing such weapons was not in their national security interests. South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Libya all chose this path. Supported by the enhancement of regional security arrangements, they saw that they could achieve their security goals without depending on nuclear weapons.

As the 1996 Canberra Commission wrote, "The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again." We need to make sure that all the fissile materials that can be used to build nuclear weapons are strictly managed under reliable conditions. Such actions will advance not only national security, but human security. Nuclear abolition is actually the most realistic choice we can make.

IPS: Do you think the five declared nuclear powers – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – have a moral or legitimate right to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons when they refuse to dismantle their own weapons?

DI: I have long asserted that the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament and abolition lies with the five states recognised as nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is why I have continued to call for reviving the currently stalled disarmament negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. And this is why I have urged that this be linked to a coordinated effort by all five countries to develop an international framework with a binding timetable for achieving nuclear disarmament.

The NPT review conference to be held in 2010 represents an important opportunity. There needs to be a return to the original spirit of the NPT – to avert the danger of nuclear war and to safeguard the security of peoples. The conference needs to find ways of promoting both non-proliferation and disarmament, to help countries free themselves from their reliance on nuclear weapons.

In recent years, key figures in nuclear weapons states, including former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, have called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. I think it is clear that the countries that possess the greatest stocks of nuclear weapons need to take the lead in realising a bold policy shift. This is the key to breaking the current impasse.

I would like to bring attention to the efforts of the Canada Pugwash Group to create a nuclear-weapons-free-zone in the Arctic. Realising such a zone would require a new level of proactive commitment from the U.S. and Russia and as such it could provide important new impetus toward the goal of nuclear abolition.

IPS: In September 1981, Israel carried out a unilateral attack on a suspected nuclear facility in Iraq, and in September last year, Israel launched a similar attack on a suspected plant in Syria. Did Israel have the legal or moral authority to conduct such unilateral attacks despite violations of national sovereignty and despite the fact that it is also a nuclear- armed country?

DI: The people of every country have the right to live in peace and security. And every country should pursue that goal through peaceful means. The use of the hard power of military force never produces real stability. This is not something that is limited to the Middle East, but is true everywhere. Force only inscribes new cycles of hatred and resentment, creating a negative legacy that will continue to haunt all parties.

The sparks of conflict cannot be extinguished with more fire. You need water. Rather than fan the flames of hate, we need to unleash a flood of dialogue. That is the best way to put out the flames. The fundamental solution lies in realising regional stability and, finally, creating a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. These are goals that can only be realised through dialogue.

Excerpt:

By Daisaku Ikeda
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 28 2008 (IPS)

As the United Nations commemorates the 60th anniversary of its landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights this year, the Tokyo-based Soka Gakkai International (SGI) has called for an international conference on human rights education.

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

SGI President Daisaku Ikeda admits that traditionally human rights issues have been – and should be – addressed primarily by governments. “But efforts cannot stop there,” he said.

“Ultimately, we need to establish a global culture of human rights, one that is shared by all people and which is rooted in the realities of people’s daily lives,” said Ikeda, who is also a Buddhist philosopher, author and peace proponent.

Asked if his home country would support such a proposal, he said: “Yes, I would certainly hope that Japan and other governments would extend political support to such a conference. At the same time, I have high expectations for the role to be played by civil society.”

In an interview with IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen, Ikeda said that a number of governments have brought up the issue of human rights education before the Human Rights Council in Geneva and expressed interest in such a conference.

“While this kind of support is very welcome, I think it is important that the essential nature of the conference as a civil society initiative not be lost,” he added.

In his annual 2008 “peace proposals” released in January, Ikeda has also called for concrete international commitments on several global issues, including nuclear disarmament, de-militarisation, elimination of poverty and hunger, empowerment of youth, and the protection of the environment.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

IPS: Although the Cold War ended about 20 years ago, the world is still grappling with a growing number of conflicts within nations and between nations. Why has the international community, and particularly the United Nations, failed to bring lasting world peace?

DI: Obviously, the United Nations has its limitations, and there is much criticism of it. But the fact remains that the U.N. is the only standing forum for dialogue about global issues in which virtually all the countries on Earth participate. This is why I have always urged in my proposals that the U.N. be placed at the centre of efforts to construct a peaceful world. We must absolutely avoid repeating the tragedy of global war, such as occurred twice in the 20th century.

In such fields as refugee relief, conflict resolution and post-conflict peacebuilding, the U.N. has been the site of quiet and largely unrecognised efforts toward the creation of what might be called a global safety net. The loss of these functions would greatly increase the suffering of people around the world.

Some years back, when I met with then U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, we discussed the fact that, relative to the expectations and burdens placed on it, the U.N. receives only the most minimal support. In other words, the U.N. is not by nature a powerless institution. Rather, what is weak is the will of the international community to work through the U.N. to resolve problems. And this lack of will impacts the ability of the U.N. to function.

For my part, I have tried to contribute to creating a better, more stable environment for the U.N. by urging the various world leaders with whom I have met to offer the U.N. greater support. This is also the reason why my peace proposals highlight what the U.N. has achieved and suggest new ways for working through the U.N. system.

The members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) have been cooperating with U.N. agencies and other NGOs to raise awareness on issues relating to disarmament and the environment and to promote an ethic of global citizenship. Our stance is not that of bystanders, watching to see whether the U.N. will succeed or fail. Rather, we want to focus on developing a deeper sense of responsibility – what can and should we do to enable the U.N. to function effectively?

Gandhi said that goodness travels at a snail’s pace. Just lamenting the U.N.’s shortcomings or becoming cynical about the harsh realities of the world achieves nothing. What matters is the steady effort to build the kind of people’s solidarity that will be a consistent source of support for the UN’s activities. The accumulated experience and wisdom gained by many different countries and peoples working together through the U.N. is immensely valuable. I am convinced that, centuries from now, this will be seen as the greatest treasure our generation bequeathed to humanity.

IPS: How imperative is a dialogue among nations to end the increasing fanaticism and intolerance in the world today?

DI: It is impossible to contain, much less resolve, the threats posed by extremism and intolerance through hard power such as military force. On the other hand, just the willingness to talk, especially if it is limited to one side, will not lead to an immediate solution. Life is not that simple. The fact is that there are cases where it seems that there is no dialogue partner, or that the burdens of the past make dialogue impossible.

But, however justified it may appear, resort to violence and force ultimately resolves nothing. The hatreds of one generation are reproduced in the next, and the conflict becomes more deeply entrenched and prolonged. Unless we can break these cycles of hatred and vengeance, the roots of violence will remain. I believe that, as challenging as this may be, persistent and courageous efforts at dialogue are the only way to overcome extremism and intolerance among peoples.

IPS: How confident are you that some, or most, of the objectives you spelled out in your peace proposals can be achieved in the next decade or during this generation?

DI: The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda, who passed away 50 years ago this year, often said that his commitment was to eliminate “misery” from the human lexicon. I regard Mr. Toda as my mentor in life and the determination to realise his dream underlies my own efforts. These proposals are part of that work. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world who suffer from the impact of wars and conflict, poverty and hunger, environmental destruction. My proposals are based on the desire that such people will be empowered to transform and overcome the sufferings in their lives.

I am neither a politician nor a policy specialist. I am sure there is much lacking in my proposals. I continue to write and issue these proposals in my capacity as a private citizen in the hope that they will help deepen the debate on critically important issues and aid the search for a way out of our present quandary. And there are a number of ideas, such as the U.N. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, that have been realised in cooperation with fellow NGOs and relevant U.N. agencies.

I have a very deep faith in the capacities of young people. I believe there is nothing young people cannot do – no reality they cannot change – if they set their minds to it. In writing these proposals, my greatest hope, my determination and commitment is to sow the seeds of change in young people’s hearts.

Excerpt: