50 Years after Russell-Einstein Manifesto
And the New Challenges for the Pugwash Movement

MG. Pan Zhenqiang (retired)

Professor, National Defense University,
PLA, China And Council Member, the Pugwash Conferences
on Science and World Affairs

Beijing, August 19

This year sees the 50th anniversary of the signing of Russell-Einstein Manifesto-one of the most significant and far-reaching political documents ever produced in the Cold War. On July 9, 1955, precisely over half a century ago, 11 world most eminent scientists (nine of them at that time, and one more in subsequent years were Noble laureates) announced through a statement at a press conference at London that they as scientists, driven by the conscience for humanity and the sense of responsibility for the security of mankind, urgently drew to the attention the greatest danger that the international community was facing, namely, the danger of nuclear weapons being again used after the devastating bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Manifesto declared: “In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction.” The statement thus strongly called on the scientists of the world and the general public to act and seek a resolution. “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind”, the Manifesto urged “the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and … consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”
The statement gained immediate worldwide attention It was widely covered in newspapers around the world. “Hundreds of letters and cables, from individuals and groups, came pouring in from all over the world, expressing approval and offering help.” The warm response indicated that the statement “had struck a sensitive chord in the minds of the public.” Undoubtedly, the Manifesto became a catalyst of the surge of peace and anti-nuclear movements organized by many non-governmental organizations in the height of Cold War being played out between the US and the former Soviet Union in 1950s, and has since been playing an important role in mounting moral pressures on the major powers, the two former superpowers in particular, in seeking the avoidance of a nuclear war and maintenance of world peace and stability.
But now that 50 years have passed, is this manifesto still relevant to the security and peace of the world today? The answer is definitely yes. In fact, facing the increasingly complex and uncertain world situation, both the world governments and the public may perhaps stand benefited more from getting inspirations from the 50-year old document.
First of all, the prospect of the nuclear catastrophe caused by the use of nuclear weapons as envisaged by the Manifesto has not only still remained but seemed more complicated and harder to predict. True, with the end of the Cold War and dismantling of the Soviet Union, possibility of a head-on nuclear confrontation between major powers is increasingly getting remote. The overwhelming majority of the world nations seem still firm in their non-nuclear option, preferring to be faithful member of the NPT. But the situation is far from being rosy. 15 years have passed since the end of the Cold War, there are still incredibly some 30,000 nuclear warheads in the arsenals of nuclear weapon states, almost the same number of these weapons when the NPT entered into force in 1970. The last decade has been especially “one of missed opportunities and a marked deterioration in global security, not least regarding the nuclear threat. In that time, additional states have acquired nuclear weapons, there has been little tangible progress in nuclear disarmament, new nuclear weapons are being proposed, and military doctrines are being revised that place a greater reliance on the potential use of such weapons.” As a result of all these trends, the world has not escaped from a possible nuclear catastrophe by a nuclear war since as long as nuclear weapons exist, they will one day be used.
But what could become an even more alarming danger looming ahead is the newly emerged role of non-state actors, who seem to be both the new source as well as the potential users of the nuclear material, technology or know-how in nuclear proliferation. The international community is facing a new and real danger of a nuclear weapon, or a crude and dirty bomb falling into the hands of non-state actors like international terrorists or even the organized crimes. The scenario of an explosion of such a device in a certain big city, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not too far-fetched but simply unacceptable to the world. This is a new threat indeed, as the entire international nonproliferation regime had been dealing with is only concerning the behavior of sovereign states.
Given the situation today, the following ringing remarks from the Manifesto should carry special weight to the international efforts to seek the effective way of maintaining peace and stability of the world:
“Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?...There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”
Secondly, the Manifesto has highlighted the significance of an honest scientist’s social responsibility and conscience for the humanity of mankind. Of these signatories of the document quite a few were atomic scientists formally engaged in research on nuclear weapons during the Second World War. They pioneered the weapons program in the fear that Nazi Germany might acquire and use such weapons before the Allies, thereby subject the world to the unimaginable catastrophe. But when many of them learned that Hitler was unable to produce such weapons, they either quit or were strongly opposed to using the bombs for the scramble for military supremacy in international politics. As the Manifesto stressed “the men who know most are the most gloomy”, these scientists have since become the staunch fighter for nuclear disarmament and against the human folly of designing the nuclear war.
In this context, two signatories are perhaps particularly worth mentioning as fine examples of what an upright scientist should be. One is Albert Einstein who was regarded the most eminent scientist alive at that time, symbolizing the height of human intellect. But he was also “a realist and aware of what was going on in the world. He was quite the opposite of what people think about scientists - being absent-minded and immersed in their work and naive. He was fully aware and trying to do something about it… [I]f he were still alive, he would still be working on his theories. But he would be working towards peace.” According to one description, Albert Einstein took an early stand against the misuse of science for political aims. When in October 1914 ninety-three German scientists signed the Fulda manifesto, claiming that science should be at the service of the fatherland and the military, he signed a counter manifesto organized by G.E Nicolai which promoted internationalism and peace.
Thus it was no surprise that Einstein played a most critical role in persuading the US government to start the Manhattan program but when the Second World War was over, he immediately wrote the US government, advising stopping developing and using nuclear weapons as there was no longer legitimate justification for that purpose. His suggestion was turned down and he became chairman of emergency committee of Atomic Scientist in the US whose major mission was to alert the public to the danger of the nuclear war and to raise money to support anti-nuclear activities of scientists. When one of his great friends Bertrand Russell wrote him about the idea of the declaration, he immediately responded not only positively, but also offering many insightful suggestions which helped put the Manifesto into shape. A week after putting his signature on the declaration, Einstein died. The document became his last act and dying wish, imploring the nation governments not to let the world be destroyed by human folly.
The other man who should also be particularly commended is Joseph Rotblat. A Polish-born British, Rotblat, like Einstein, was initially involved in the US nuclear program at Los Alamos. But after he learned in 1944 that Germany had given up its nuclear program, he was the only person who resigns from the US project on the moral ground. Since then he has been devoted all his life to prevent another such catastrophe like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to go around and talk to scientists in Britain about the dreadful effects of the atom bomb, in spite of the difficult situation that he was labeled a Soviet spy or “traitor”. . He was also the chief organizer of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs in 1957, whose main responsibility was to carry the message in the Manifesto into action, namely, to reach across national, political, and cultural divisions to bring together influential scientists and policy specialists to find ways of reducing and eliminating the risk posed by conflict, war and weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear weapons in particular. I will come to Pugwash movement later. But to talk about Rotblat, the experience in his long life has been indeed legendary worth deep respect and admiration. At the age of 96, he is now the only survivor of the signatories to both the Manifesto and the founding document of Pugwash. “For their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics, in the longer run to eliminate such arms”, he and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. As the “godfather” of the Pugwash movement, he has never missed each and every Pugwash annual conference since its beginning in 1957 except for the most recent one at Hiroshima in 2005 owing to his senior age. Although he was absent from the 55th Pugwash annual conference, he sent a written welcome speech, continuing to demonstrate his vision, courage and honesty in search for a better world, and call on the scientists to unite to contribute to this loft course. He stressed:
“I am coming to believe that the time has come for Pugwash, while not for a moment relinquishing its scientific integrity, to lay the facts before the public. The end of the Cold War has led to public complacency, but in fact the dangers of a nuclear conflict are about as high as they have ever been…I believe that we must go beyond that, and seek to abolish war itself. This aim, intrinsic to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, will take us on a long hard road. It does not necessarily mean pacifism as that is generally understood, but it means choosing to seek a world with ‘continual progress in happiness and wisdom,’ a world in which morality, law and mutual respect govern the relations between nations, and no nation uses military power to impose its will on others.”
The beliefs and actions of scientists of the older generation like Einstein and Rotblat are particularly valuable and pertinent in the struggle for the world peace and security today. Since the end of the Cold War, many seem to take it for granted that the danger of a nuclear war is increasingly reseeding. People seem indifferent to the possible nuclear catastrophe. On the other hand, the current rise of unilateralism, disdain to the norm in the international relations, and war clamors as demonstrated in the policies of certain major powers have greatly confused the publics. False accusations and misinformation from the governments have often clouded the dangers that the Manifesto had so urgently pointed out. Further, with the growing material incentives offered to the scientific community as a result of the rapid development of science and technology and globalization, scientists seem less and less to think seriously about their social responsibility for the humanity of mankind and ethics in their research. It is thus high time to rethink the examples these scientists has set for us. Here another ringing paragraph by Rotblat is perhaps right to the point:
“At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society, when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research, it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role, and conduct themselves accordingly. I appeal to my fellow scientists to remember their responsibility to humanity.”
Last but not the least, the Manifesto has also provided important inspirations to the international community for its current efforts to define a sustained and effective approach to addressing the nuclear danger in the future. In the first place, our founding fathers of the document were not satisfied with only pointing out the danger of a nuclear catastrophe, but calling on taking actions to avert this danger. As Russell, another chief designer for the Manifesto, pointed out:
“I find many people paralyzed by inability to think of anything that could be done; and I do not think we should rest content with pointing out the horrors of war, but should suggest practical steps toward preventing it.”
During the process of deliberations for the statement, both Russell and Einstein did try hard to include an action plan. The Manifesto eventually ended up with a suggestion to call for a conference to fulfill this need. It may be out of their expectations that the idea of a conference has resulted in the fast spread of peace movement the worldwide in the subsequent years.
The Manifesto has also made a unique contribution to the world peace and security by advocating the linkage of the elimination of weapons of mass destruction with the abolishment of war. The vision has brought home the root cause of all the insecurities of the world in the past as well as today.
But perhaps above all else, the Manifesto offered a new vision of addressing the international issues through multilateral cooperation and by peaceful means, which is still very relevant to our current efforts to eliminating all the weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, one cannot but help admire the wisdom of those scientists of the older generation when they stressed the importance of inclusion of people from a wide range of political and national perspectives in order to achieve the purpose of preventing the nuclear disaster. Ideological bias should not be an obstacle. The manifesto argued:
“Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this t be understood, both in the East and in the West.”
To further implement this new vision of achieving peace and security through cooperation rather than confrontation and war among nations which may have different values, both Einstein and Russell agreed that the selection of the participants to the Manifesto itself should symbolize this spirit. These scientists “should be so diverse in their politics that any statement signed by all of them would be obviously free from pro-Communist or anti-Communist bias.” Thus, of the 11 eminent scientists to sign the document, there were both pro-Communists as well as anti-Communists. In his invitation to Joliot-Curie to join the statement, Russell wrote emphatically to hammer on his point: “I am an anti-Communist, and it is precisely because you are a Communist that I am anxious to work with you.”
In conclusion, the significance of the Manifesto lies in as much a new vision offered to solve the international issues as the warning of the danger of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. 50 years have passed since the signing of the Manifesto, the world is faced with much more complicated and diversified threats in the post-Cold War era. And perhaps the nuclear war between major powers is no longer the number one threats in the world as the statement had predicted 50 years ago. But to solve all the present problems that may bring the same devastating destruction to the mankind, the Manifesto has contributed to a new security concept based on the multilateral and cooperative approach. Situation may change. Threats may emerge in different forms. Yet the guiding lines to the solution of them as contained in the Manifesto are still very valid and would never become outdated.
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto becomes the Pugwash Conferences' founding charter. In 1957, scientists from both the East and the West can together to hold the conference on science and world affairs in accordiance with the guiding principles as reflected in the documents. For over 48 years the organization has brought together, from around the world, influential scholars and public figures concerned with reducing the danger of armed conflict and seeking cooperative solutions for global problems. Meeting in private as individuals, rather than as representatives of governments or institutions, Pugwash participants with divergent perspectives exchange views and explore alternative approaches to arms control and tension reduction with a combination of candor, continuity, and flexibility seldom attained in official East-West and North-South discussions and negotiations. Yet, because of the stature of many of the Pugwash participants in their own countries (as, for example, science and arms-control advisers to governments, key figures in academies of science and universities, and former and future holders of high government office), insights from Pugwash discussions tend to penetrate quickly to the appropriate levels of official policy-making. Its inclusion of both Western and Socialist countries in the Cold War marked a particular advance and a brave demonstration of the independence of free minds.
From that beginning evolved both a continuing series of meetings at locations all over the world -- with a growing number and diversity of participants -- and a rather decentralized organizational structure to coordinate and finance this activity. By late 2002, there have been over 275 Pugwash Conferences, Symposia, and Workshops, with a total attendance of over 10,000 (there are now in the world over 3500 "Pugwashites", namely individuals who have attended a Pugwash meeting and are hence considered associated with Pugwash and receive our newsletter). A basic rule is that participation is always by individuals in their private capacity (not as representatives of governments or organizations).
It is because of this unique contribution to the world peace and security, the organization was rewarded Nobel Peace Price together with Rotblat in 1995 as I mentioned earlier. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs has become the most influential peace movement in the world.
At present, averting the disaster rendered by weapons of mass destruction (the nuclear weapons in particular) remains the central focus of Pugwash efforts. But to keep with time of change, the organization has spent increasing attention to the regional security as well as human security issues involving environmental, energy, equitable access to food, water, healthcare, education, and economic opportunity, etc, that are mostly related to the developing countries. These are all understandable as part of Russell-Einstein Manifesto's overarching problem-the idea of abolishing the war and establishing anew international order. It is to be expected that based on 48 years of experience in building trust among those in conflict, and with more than 50 national groups around the world, Pugwash will continue all this important work in the future.
In the meantime, as the international community is entering a more pluralistic, interdependent and uncertain world, Pugwash is confronted with new challenges that call for a need to adjust its strategy and adapt to the new situation. To put them in more general terms, these challenges may be summarized as the following:
First, while nuclear danger continues to be a threat that people cannot afford to neglect, the cause of the possible use of nuclear weapons was much more complicated than the time when Russell-Einstein Manifesto was produced. One eminent American specialist rightly pointed out that
“All are still equally in peril, but the peril is radically different and infinitely more difficult to confront. In fact, the choice between war and peace alone is inadequate to the task if peace brings continued indifference or acquiescence to the economic, political, religious and cultural issues that give rise to terrorism.”
Given the situation, Pugwash needs perhaps to strike a balance in its future multidimensional work in the future, namely, a balance between maintaining focus on nuclear matters on the one hand and on many other issues, the solutions of which may well be essential to the peace and security of the world on the other. The two are not necessarily in conflict, but will pose problems for Pugwash of overstretching and losing its own identity if not kept in good proportion.
Secondly, Pugwash needs a strategy to better reach out the public and to enhance the awareness of the average people of the danger caused by weapons of mass destruction and the role that they can play in preventing the threat. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs are first and foremost an organization of scientists. And scientists have a shared frame of reference and speak the same language across ideological, religious or national dividing lines. Thus it is the unique strength that Pugwash has. Through communicating to the public, Pugwash can offer its objective and scientific assessment of the harmful consequences of scientific discoveries and wrong policies of the governments. To a great extent, all of these efforts hinge on the ability of public relations of Pugwash so to speak. That requires a lot of more work for the organization. In this connection, one of the most essential challenges is if Pugwash is able to encourage various national groups each to better play its role in mobilizing the national resources for the accomplishment of Pugwash tasks. Another important challenge is whether Pugwash is able to have better channels to reach the scientific communities as well as national governments of the developing countries while continuing to drawing support from the developed countries.
Lastly, Pugwash needs also to overcome a generation problem. Our “Pugwashites” of older generation has contributed so much to the work of Pugwash. But owing to the law of metabolism, many of them are now phasing out each year. Thus it is natural that Pugwash will be experiencing a transitional process not only in its leadership, but also the main body of the participants. This requires more participation of the young scientists who will carry on the spirit of the Manifesto and fine traditions of Pugwash. Fortunately, the current leadership of Pugwash has attached importance to the task and made great efforts to accomplish the job. But of course much more still needs to be done in this field in the future.

PS: Barely one week after this small piece was finished I sadly learned that Sir Joseph Rotblat died on August 31, 2001. Pugwash has lost a friend, mentor and moral touchstone. The whole international community has lost a staunch fighter for peace and security. As a personal friend and student of Jo, no words can express my deep sorrow and condolence for this great loss. But I believe the best way to remember him is to carry on the fighting spirit of Rotblat for a world free of all weapons of mass destruction, free of war and free of all evils. I believe that is exactly what Pugwash is going to do in the future. As the statement of the Council of Pugwash in memory of Sir Joseph Rotblat stressed:
“Inspired by Jo, Pugwash has continued to grow, with representation today in more than 50 countries around the world, and with active involvement in precisely those conflict areas where the risk of nuclear weapons use is greatest…It will continue to strive for those ideals so wonderfully and eloquently articulated by Jo throughout his lifetime. We may have lost his companionship, humor and intellectual guidance, but we will never lose his steadfast sense of purpose in knowing the right thing to do.”