Tad Daley

Guest Blogger

Tad Daley is a political author, an international policy analyst, and a zealot for the vision of enduring world peace through enforceable world law. He directs the Project on Abolishing War at the Center for War/Peace Studies in New York and Washington. His first book, APOCALYPSE NEVER: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, was released by Rutgers University Press in 2010 and again in paperback in 2012. You can see praise for the book, published reviews, and audios and videos of Tad on the stump at www.apocalypsenever.org.

Tad holds a B.A. in Political Science from Knox College, an M.Sc. in International Studies from the University of Southampton in England, a J.D. from the University of Illinois, and a Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from the RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies. Previously, Tad served as a policy advisor and speechwriter for Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-California), the late U.S. Senator Alan Cranston (D-California), and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). He ran for U.S. Congress himself in a 2001 special election to represent mid-city LA. And he spent several years as a member of the International Policy Department at the RAND Corporation.

Tad is currently working on his second book, on the history and future of the ancient idea, dating back at least to Dante, that someday the human race might establish no less than a Federal Republic of the World -- and thereby bring about the abolition of armies, the abolition of war, and public policies directed at serving not individual national interests but the common human interest, and the global public good. You can read all about it, and about Tad's other ongoing adventures, at www.abolishingwar.org and www.daleyplanet.org.

Ban the Bomb!

Image: flickr/_Gavroche_

In April 2009 in Prague, President Obama told an adoring throng that he intended "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." His administration has undertaken some baby steps in that direction. Most notably there has been the New START Treaty with Russia and ongoing multilateral summits on securing all things nuclear from terrorists.

But the president has not convened any consultations with other states to explore how state parties might go about negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC). A very elaborate and carefully constructed model NWC-the product of dozens of scientists, lawyers, nuclear experts, and former government officials, and based in large measure upon the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)-has been floating around the nuclear policy arena since 1997. Every year since, the UN General Assembly has passed a quite explicit resolution on the matter, calling for "commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention, prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons, and providing for their elimination."

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been portrayed in recent weeks as primarily concerned with overseeing the destruction of chemical arsenals-today in Syria but previously in both the United States and Russia. But the fundamental raison d'etre of the OPCW, as envisioned in the CWC itself, is not just to authenticate the destruction of existing stockpiles of chemical weapons but also to verify, over the very long term, that they never again re-enter history.

It's New START -- and a small step -- Toward a World Without Nukes

If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The ratification of the new START treaty, without question, was uncertain as recently as one week ago. But because of the indefatigable efforts of us, citizens who stand for global solutions to global challenges, we turned the tide. We moved the mountain. We carried the day.

Imagine what other mountains we're going to move in the months and years to come.

At the heart of the new START treaty stands a Big Idea that can be expressed in a single sentence. When both we and our potential adversaries agree to mutually limit our military muscle and to mutually open ourselves to external inspections, that's better for us, for American national security, than when we insist that we cannot allow our armaments or our sovereignty to be constrained in any way (as the right demagogically demands), and consequently our potential adversaries remain wholly unconstrained as well.