Portraits of Global Citizens

Joseph Rotblat was 91 years old when we met for the second time in February 2000. Even at that age he continued to zip around the world with unchanging vigor, his back straight and his pace even faster than that of a man in the prime of life. Why is he so active? "I have one overriding objective," he told me, "and I have remained as determined as ever in pursuing it. That, I believe, is how I have maintained my vigor." The objective Rotblat referred to was his determination to rid the world of nuclear weapons and of war itself.

When the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research held an international conference on "Non-Nuclear Prerequisites for Nuclear Disarmament" in the U.K. in 1997, Professor Rotblat arrived at the conference hall two and a half hours early to check all the equipment, the projectors and the microphones, and to make sure everything was set up perfectly. Since he is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and is also advanced in age, one might expect that he would arrive just on schedule, making his leisurely way to the lecture hall and expecting that everything would be in order for him. But Professor Rotblat always confirms everything with his own hand, his own eye and his own ear, and he does so cheerfully, courteously and thoroughly.

In thinking of him, I am reminded of a quote from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued in 1955, which served as the starting point for the Pugwash Conferences: "We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest." The Pugwash Conferences are discussions between individuals on the issues of disarmament and peace, and their importance was recognized in 1995 when the Conferences and Professor Rotblat jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. Professor Rotblat is sometimes referred to as "Mr. Pugwash." This is not only because of his long association with the Conferences, but also undoubtedly because his personality is a crystallization of the "Pugwash spirit."

When we first met in Osaka in 1989, Professor Rotblat commented: "War turns people into mindless beasts. Even scientists who are normally highly logical lose their rationality when a war breaks out. People who detest barbarism start to act in a barbaric way. This is the insanity of war."

Professor Rotblat (center) with Mr. Ikeda in Okinawa (February 2000)

Professor Rotblat was speaking from his own experience. Immediately before the outbreak of war in 1939, he was conducting research at the University of Liverpool in the U.K. He had left his wife in Poland, his country of birth, because his small scholarship would only support one person. It was only after he had established himself as a pioneering expert in the field that he was able to make arrangements to bring his wife to the U.K. Unfortunately, she fell ill and was unable to travel. He was forced to leave her behind and return alone to Liverpool. Two days later, Hitler's troops invaded Poland. 

Professor Rotblat recalls, "I was part of the Manhattan Project. This was based on the belief that Hitler was certain to be developing atomic arms as well, in which case he would win the war and democracy would be lost. Our rationale was that the only way to prevent Hitler from using the atom bomb against us would be for us too to have it and threaten with retaliation. Later, it became clear that this theory of nuclear deterrence was wrong, but it was this theory that lay behind the first development of nuclear weapons." 

Since he believed that science had no meaning unless it served humanity, Professor Rotblat disagreed with the view that science, in and of itself, is neutral and should be employed merely in the quest of the unknown. He was convinced that moral neutrality was impossible in the contemporary world.

This is an important concept. The idea of neutrality is often used as an excuse for the failure to make clear value judgments. However, if we fail to make value judgments, we will end up being governed by circumstances. For example, if we try to be neutral rather than resist authoritarianism, we may end up being controlled by authoritarians. 

As time progressed, Professor Rotblat became immersed in atomic weapons research despite his reservations. However, as soon as it was confirmed that Nazi Germany would, in fact, not develop the capability to build an atomic bomb, Professor Rotblat displayed the moral qualities that distinguish him. He totally dissociated himself from the Manhattan Project, declaring, "If the Germans will not have a bomb, it is not right for us to develop one."

This move was fraught with personal peril. Although he had taken a pledge never to share the details of the research, others assumed that he would go to the Soviets and tell them what he knew. He felt that his life was in danger. 

Professor Rotblat was the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project. Although others shared his feelings, they rationalized their continued participation in the project by saying that to quit would be a stain on their academic record, or that since they had begun the project, they should finish it with the test of an actual bomb. If, at that time, other scientists had also decided not to continue work on the project, the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have never occurred. Professor Rotblat, a living witness, insists: "It is not correct that the bombs were dropped on Japan only to ensure the rapid end of the war. The real purpose was to demonstrate America's strength to the Soviets."

Professor Rotblat was never again to meet his wife, Tola. She perished in the Holocaust. The couple had lived together only a very short time and had no children. Suffering often results in lethargy, but this great scientist transformed his deep sorrow into the determination to work for peace. Since then, for more than half a century, he has never wavered from this objective.

What conclusion does Professor Rotblat draw from his discussions with the world's foremost minds over these long years? His verdict: "A world without nuclear weapons will be safer than a world with them. And it is definitely possible to achieve a world without nuclear weapons." 

Since the end of the Cold War, the nuclear-weapons states have been faced with the same issue that confronted Professor Rotblat many years ago: namely, why develop nuclear weapons when there is no longer any reason to do so? In order to justify the development of nuclear weapons, it is necessary for governments to think up reasons for having them. Does a nation "create" a new enemy? Or does it claim that nuclear weapons are a necessary status symbol of a great power? Or does it simply acquiesce to the demands of the armaments industry?

Professor Rotblat has repeatedly said: "Since Japan was a victim of nuclear weapons, it should actively campaign for the elimination of nuclear arms." Surely there can be no more valuable contribution that Japan can make to the world. Nevertheless, Japan has always simply followed the U.S. lead, and at the United Nations it has abstained for many years on motions such as calls to abolish nuclear weapons. 

After our meeting in Osaka, Professor Rotblat inscribed the following in the visitor's book: "In the nuclear age, we are faced with a choice between just two options--the elimination of war or the elimination of humanity." There is no question that we are in a period of transition. The "hard power" concept that has characterized past centuries--prepare for war if you want peace--is bankrupt. We need the "soft power" concept--prepare for peace if you want peace--in the 21st century. 

We live in an age when the only way to ensure peace is to create structures that ensure the impossibility of war. It is necessary to strengthen the heart through culture, sow the seeds of humanism through education, and build bridges of friendship with other countries through dialogue.

There is no such thing as a just war, just as there can be no such thing as a just murder. We must treasure the Russell-Einstein Manifesto's eloquent statement, "Remember your humanity, and forget the rest!" if we are to construct a foundation of peace in the 21st century. If we are unable to do so, we will have learned nothing from the 20th century, a century that saw more people brutally killed in war than any other in human history.

>>Next Page>>