Letter from Poland

I recently visited Kraków, Poland, with nine of my writing colleagues, for a ‘writing retreat’ and some minor tourism.

We arrived 10 November, the day before an important national holiday, National Independence Day…

… a national day in Poland celebrated on 11 November to commemorate the anniversary of the restoration of Poland’s sovereignty as the Second Polish Republic in 1918, after 123 years of partition by the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Habsburg Empire. (Wikipedia)


One of the celebrations early on November 11, image taken from our hotel room

In pursuing the tourism, I went to the English language Massolit Bookstore. The fellow at the cashier and cafe desk is interested in the Beat Poets, as I am. He and I struck up a conversation and I promised to send him a poem by Lawrence Ferlinghetti.

After returning home, I sent him the poem, along with some personal comments and links to my writing. I received from him a most unexpected response. Here it is:

I am happy to read that you enjoyed your stay in Kraków. It is my favourite Polish city and I am happy to have moved here for good. You found it much settled in history and past. The city was lucky, very lucky not to be destroyed much by any war. Even the Communist  regime didn’t crush its beauty and spirit. And seriously, to me Kraków is an escapist city.

In any other Polish city I always feel some destruction. Warsaw was paved to the ground and awfully rebuilt after 1945. Lublin, which I came from is a God-forgotten place suffering from the consequences of a too rapid switch from communism to capitalism. Wrocław, which I lived in is a German town made Polish fifty years ago and still struggling to reinvent it’s identity, a continuing process. Only in Kraków do I feel at home, without all the damage that has been done to this country.


I am writing this at age thirty-four, in the generation that grew up seeing the old being replaced by the new Poland after 1989. I was eight when it all happened. My parents would tell me “how it’s been” and why the Regime should “never repeat”. They raised me with this warning. Their parents raised them with the warnings against war. I am happy to notice twenty-year-olds not influenced with this kind of perspective.

My grandfather lost all his family during the war. He never came back to Lviv (today’s Ukraine, yesterday’s Poland). My mother tried to look for our relatives, didn’t meet anyone when she came there. I don’t feel like going there at all. Let past be the past.

This might sound cruel, but… I am sick and tired of war literature, especially the Holocaust kind of literature still being “mass produced” by yet another Jewish person coming to Auschwitz as a part of their “identity trip”. With masterpieces like Ellie Wiesel’s “Night” we don’t need any more Shoah books to understand the trauma.

I spent one year volunteering in Israel, which was a great lesson on complexity and diversity of life in all kinds of meaning. I walked a mile in someone else’s shoes and it was the most precious experience so far.

I came back to Poland and got close to Judaism again. I acted in Jewish theatre groups. I think that if there is any space in which we can work out the demons of all kinds it is art. Only in art and only on the non-personal but emotional and spiritual level of metaphorical language we can “speak with the ghosts.”

Some people now say: “If they chose Trump it means that humankind didn’t learn anything”. Well, a bit overstatement I would say, but I find an answer in Walter Benjamin’s “The Angel of History” essay. He said that all the answers have been given a long time ago and that if there is something like the Messianic times it IS the time of now, and if we can recognise ourselves and recognise our calling in the calling that has been left to us by the late generations to be accomplished, then it means we are doing right at life.

But why am I writing all this actually? Well, I believe life is a journey and I am trying to learn from all the passengers I happen to be travelling with. Sometimes I feel like explaining myself. Maybe that was one of these moments. We, Poles, have an idea of “The Polish complex,” which is an old fear of not being appreciated or never being understood by outsiders. Maybe this is also my complex that keeps me trying to tell this story again and again, come back to past, tell the identity and keep on checking if I have really told “the whole” story…


— Jakub Wydrzynski

A Modern Exodus of Ethiopian Jews

For the most of us who have not heard of the Jews who lived for thousands of years in Ethiopia, much less of their recent exodus to Israel, here is a story starting around 950 BC that you may find intriguing.

My friend Eric Gandy and I attended the weekly meeting of the Stockholm International Rotary Club on March 15 to listen to Bengt Nilsson, a journalist and documentary film producer. His presentation centered on the relationship between the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon of Israel, and of the historical (or alleged) journey of the Ark of the Covenant from Israel to what is now Ethiopia. He has written a novel, Makeda, Queen of Sheba (currently, only in Swedish), which explores these facets of history and legend. His presentation was in English. (Note: Eric had much to do with the research and writing of this article).

Moses with the Tablets, Rembrandt (1606–1669)

Abraham, Moses, and The Covenant

Mr. Nilsson recounted the history of the Jewish people from earliest days, on to the times of their enslavement in Egypt, their escape under the leadership of Moses around 1200 BC, and then to his receiving from JAHWEH (God) the Ten Commandments inscribed on tablets. These writings were the laws which were to be followed by the Jews as their part of the covenant (contract) between God and the Jewish people. The Jewish people were to inherit the land God promised to Father Abraham, and now God had given them the Commandments which they must keep and observe as their part of the covenant. The tablets were the material reminder of the covenant.

For Jews, Abraham is, through Isaac and Jacob, the founding patriarch of the children of Israel. God promised Abraham: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you”. With Abraham, God entered into “an everlasting covenant throughout the ages to be God to you and to your offspring to come.”  Abraham is primarily a revered ancestor or patriarch to whom God made several promises: chiefly, that he would have numberless descendants, who would receive the land of Canaan (the “Promised Land“). (Wikipedia)

Ultimately, the Jews of the next generation under Moses reached the land of Canaan and established what would become Israel under a succession of Hebrew kings, including Solomon who was King of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah from 971 – 931 BC. The covenant was eventually placed in an Ark and secured in the Temple of Jerusalem, built by Solomon

The Queen of Sheba Visits King Solomon

Solomon and Sheba, from “The Gates of Paradise”, the Baptistery, Florence, Italy. Lorenzo Ghiberti (1378 – 1455)

In 1770 AD, Scottish explorer James Bruce, while looking for the source of the Blue Nile, encountered the remnants of a large Jewish community in the mountain highlands around Lake Tana, in the northern province of Gondar in Ethiopia. He estimated this community then comprised about 100,000 persons. Their ancestors had been living there for centuries and called themselves Beta Israel – the House of Israel. One half million Jewish settlers were estimated to have lived in the area at one time, but time and circumstance had diminished their numbers.

Bruce described the peoples of Ethiopia as shepherds, warlike, of great size, prodigious strength, hunting lions, elephants, rhinos and other monstrous animals for food. They were rich in gold and silver, but had no grain or bread. The Jews of Ethiopia followed the Torah. Their neighbors called them Falashas – alien ones, the invaders – even after hundreds of years of coexistence and intermarriage, and with the same physical characteristics as the majority of people in Ethiopia.

Bruce elicited from the Falashas the legendary history of how their Jewish ancestors came to be in Ethiopia. I offer here a brief summary of the rich story told to James Bruce, recounted to us by Mr. Nilsson, and which can be more fully seen under several of the links in this article (all major sources will be offered in the endnotes).

The Queen of the land of Sheba (much larger than now encompassed by the borders of Ethiopia) had heard, possibly from Jewish travelers and traders from across the Red Sea on the Arabian Peninsula, of the great ruler of Israel, King Solomon. She wanted to learn from him about how to be a good ruler of her people and to establish trade relations, among other things. She traveled in a great caravan to Israel and brought Solomon gifts from her country. She stayed around six months and, according to legend, cohabited with Solomon only once, shortly before her return home.

From this brief union a son was born: Menelik. When he was 20 years old, he traveled to Israel at his mother’s pleasure, in order to present himself to his father, Solomon. The great king accepted Menelik as his own and gave him a charge: to transport the Ark and its Covenant to Sheba for safekeeping, as his country was under great threat at the time, and he was growing old and weary. (There are other accounts which are quite different, but this is the account presented by Bengt Nilsson and which is supported by the tradition of the Ethiopian Jews).

Menelik returned to rule Ethiopia, having taken the name “Menilek I”, accompanied by the eldest sons of the nobles of Israel. The Ethiopians believe that these elder sons who accompanied their prince brought from Jerusalem the original Ark of the Covenant, and this treasure is symbolized by a square oblong box kept in every Ethiopian Orthodox (Christian) church. (Source: Chris Prouty Rosenfeld)

The Growth and Decline of the Jewish People in Ethiopia

The Jewish Agency for Israel

Over the centuries, the descendants of Menilek and the Jews who accompanied him from Israel, the Beta Israel, came to number many tens of thousands and to have ruled their own community for significant periods. The Beta Israel enjoyed relative independence through the Middle Ages, but the fortunes of the Jewish community in Ethiopia were affected by events both within and outside the region over the course of centuries. Christianity spread throughout the Axum dynasty in the 4th century AD. By the 7th century Islam was spreading from the north. There was intermittent fighting with other tribes and the Beta Israel lost their autonomy after a battle in 1624 described in one account as an attempt to eradicate forever the Judaic memory of Ethiopia. Survivors were enslaved and forbidden to own land.

Despite persecution and discrimination, the Jews remained in Ethiopia. The situation for the Beta Israel worsened when the Mengistu dictatorship took over after Haile Selassie’s regime collapsed in 1973. In connection with Mengistu’s coup many Jews were killed and many more made homeless. In 1980 Ethiopia banned the practice of Judaism and teaching of Hebrew, while members of the Beta Israel were harassed and imprisoned. (Source: Jewish Virtual Library).

Aliyah (Repatriation) and Acceptance into Israel on “Humanitarian Grounds”

The Beta Israel

In 1973 the Israeli Ministry of Absorption prepared a report on the Beta Israel ethnic group which stated that the Falasha were foreign in all aspects to the Jewish nation. The report concluded that there was no need to take action in order to help the ethnic group make Aliyah to Israel. Shortly after the publication of this report, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the Sephardi chief rabbi, decreed that the Beta Israel are a descendant tribe of Israel and that giving them a proper Jewish education and the right to immigrate to Israel was a Mitzvah. Subsequently, Israel officially applied the Law of Return (Aliyah) to the Beta Israel community.

In the absence of full diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, The Israeli Mossad contacted officials in Sudan. Thousands of Beta Israel community from Ethiopia traveled by foot to the border with Sudan, and waited there in temporary camps until they were flown to Israel. Between the years 1977 and 1984, these immigrants were led from the camps to Israel by means of vessels of the Israeli Sea Corps, and by air. About 8,000 made a dangerous journey to Israel during which about 4,000 Beta Israel perished from disease or hunger or were killed by bandits. After it became clear that the immigrants who remained in the Sudanese camps were in danger, it was decided to pursue an operation of intense immigration, nicknamed “Operation Moses“, during which Israeli aircraft brought about 8,000 more immigrants to Israel.

Entire families undertook long and dangerous treks, which often spanned whole months. As a result of the difficult journey and bad conditions, hundreds, possibly thousands, of Beta Israel Ethiopians died on the way to the Sudanese camps. The operation ended prematurely, after a press leak in Israel regarding Ethiopian Aliyah via Sudan to Israel. After the media exposure to the operation, the Sudanese government was dismissed, and relations between Israel and Sudan were soured.

Despite this, more Beta Israel were brought to Israel, including 1,200 in the Operation Sheba and 800 more on Operation Joshua that took place in 1985, with the help of George H. W. Bush, who was then Vice President of the United States. (Source: Jewish Virtual Library)

Gondar Beta Israel Synagogue (roxanan.com)

The Falasha Mura

Missionary activity intensified at the end of the 19th century and large numbers of the Beta Israel community converted. These people who had once been Jews, or whose ancestors had been Jews, are referred to as the Falash Mura. The Falash Mura did not refer to themselves as Beta Israel until after the latter had begun to immigrate to Israel.

The Falash Mura were virtually unknown until Operation Solomon, when a number attempted to board the Israeli planes and were turned away. The Falash Mura said they were entitled to immigrate because they were Jews by ancestry, but the Israelis initially saw them as non-Jews, since most had never practiced Judaism and were not considered by the Beta Israel as part of their community.

Activists maintained that the Falash Mura had been forced to convert or had done so for pragmatic reasons without ever really abandoning their Jewish faith. The North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ) provided aid to the group in Addis Ababa, the capital city, who had not returned to their homes after being left behind during Operation Solomon. Once food and medical care became available, more Falash Mura left their villages for Addis Ababa, and soon began to overload the meager resources of NACOEJ.

In 1997, the government agreed to a one-time humanitarian gesture to bring to Israel everyone in Addis Ababa with some connection to the “seed of Israel.” Afterward, the camps were to be closed and future immigration was to be based on the criteria used for immigration from all other countries. Israel brought the 4,000 Falash Mura then in Addis Ababa to Israel in groups rather than all at once. This stimulated more Falash Mura to come to Addis Ababa in expectation of similar treatment. After an initial estimate of fewer than 10,000 Falash Mura, the number soon increased to more than 30,000.

In early 2001, nearly 20,000 Falash Mura remained in camps in Gondar and Addis Ababa. The Falash Mura received additional support in 2002 when Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef declared that the Falash Mura had converted out of fear and persecution and therefore should be considered Jews.

In January 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that all of the Falash Mura from Ethiopia would be brought to Israel by the end of 2007.  But Israel realized that it could not bring in thousands of Ethiopians without the cooperation of the government of Ethiopia. In November 2005, Ethiopia and Israel signed an understanding to double the rate of Ethiopian immigration to Israel from 300 to 600 (per month). In 2007, an estimated 3,000 Falash Mura lived in Addis Ababa and another 12,000 in Gondar City. Altogether, approximately 18,000 Falash Mura were believed to still be in Ethiopia.

The last official airlift of Ethiopian Jews landed in Tel Aviv on 5 August 2008, bringing to an end Israel’s 30-year effort to bring all of the Jews to Israel. A month later, the Israeli Cabinet agreed to allow additional Ethiopians petition for aliyah. Some activists maintain that still more Jews remain in Ethiopia, but the government said it had brought the entire community to Israel, a total of roughly 120,000 people.

Still, more Falash Mura remained in Ethiopia after the “final” airlift. Several thousand were in a Gondar transit camp as of the end of 2009. In early January 2010, Israel began to accept small numbers out of Ethiopia again. The Israeli government said it would now accept approximately 3,000 Falash Mura.

Some Demographics of Modern Israel, from The World Factbook of the CIA

Where is Ark of the Covenant?

Mr. Nilsson did not state categorically that the Covenant, and the Ark containing it, were in Ethiopia, but no one can say categorically that it isn’t. Mr. Nilsson prefers to believe the account of the Ethiopian Jews; that is, the Ark was first ensconced on the island of of Tana Kirkos in Lake Tana, where it remained for over 800 years. When the Axumite kingdom converted to Christianity after 331 AD, the Ark of the Covenant was co-opted by the Christian hierarchy and brought from Tana Kirkos to the newly constructed church of St. Mary of Zion in Axum, where it remains under the guardianship of the church. (Source).

Many of the references listed in the endnotes will point to, or state, different accounts. You are invited to explore these.

Today: The Third Temple?

According to orthodox Jewish people and Hebrew Bible, the First Temple was constructed by Solomon, the then King. This was also known as Solomon’s Temple and it dates back to the 10th century B.C. This Temple was the centre of orthodox Jewish belief and ancient Judaism. The Temple stood for around 400 years until Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 BC.

There was a Second Jewish Temple built over the first one. Construction started in 537 BC and was completed in 516 BC. This Temple too was destroyed, by the Romans. In 19 BC, King Herod started the renovation with a vision of a grander Temple. However as soon as the complex was complete it was razed to the grounds by the Romans. After the destruction of the Second Temple, all Jews have included a prayer for the construction of the Third Jewish Temple in their daily prayers. (Source).

Plans for building the Third Temple in Jerusalem are under this link.

In that the first temple was built to house and protect the Ark of the Covenant, a question can be raised as to what Orthodox and other Jews will do to deal with this. There are some who claim that the Ark is buried under the ruins of the Second Temple:

The Ark of the Covenant is under the Temple Mount, in the Holy of Holies, awaiting its imminent placement in the Third Temple foretold by the Prophets and destined to become a House of Prayer for All Peoples. (Source).

The Covenant is hidden by the Ark not only for the safety of the tablets, but also for the safety of any on-looker:

The holiness of the Ark also made it dangerous to those who came in contact with it. When Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, brought a foreign flame to offer a sacrifice in the Tabernacle, they were devoured by a fire that emanated “from the Lord” (Lev. 10:2). During the saga of the capture of the Ark by the Philistines, numerous people, including some who merely looked at the Ark, were killed by its power. Similarly, the Priests who served in the Tabernacle and Temple were told that viewing the Ark at an improper time would result in immediate death (Num. 4:20). (Source).

Ark Carried on Poles by Egyptians in Procession. bible-history.com

Whatever its powers were when it could be identified as to place and time, the powers of The Covenant are visible today in the great interest it, and its Ark, elicit in historians, archaeologists, religions “of the book”, and in writers such as Mr. Bengt Nilsson who introduced the subject to me and Eric Gandy.

Now you have been affected, in some way, by the reading of this narrative.

Major sources used in this article:

Dictionary of African Christian Biography, Chris Prouty Rosenfeld

History of the Ethiopian Empire from Menekuk I, in 960 BC, to the Present

Is the Ark of the Covenant at Aksum?, by Roderick Grierson in The Wonders of the African World, PBS.org

Sacred Sites of Ethiopia and the Ark of the Covenant

The Book of James Bruce, Selected Pages

The Kebra Nagast, by E.A. Wallis Budge

The Lost Ark of the Covenant

The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son, Menyelek (Kĕbra Nagast), Translated by Sir E.A. Wallis Budge

The Quest for the Ark of the Covenant, by Stuart Munro-Hay: The True story of the Tablets of Moses

Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773

Other Sources:

The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people

Jewish ethnic divisions


Nuclear Arms in Europe: Who are the Adversaries?

This question arises from a comment made by Daryl G. Press, PhD at a seminar on “Nuclear Weapons and European Security—a good match?” in Stockholm, on 26 January this year.

Additionally, the seminar’s title raises the question of the potential enemy against which Europe remains armed, through NATO and therefore through the USA, with nuclear weapons. The Cold War is over. The quick answer is that the potential adversaries are found in East Asia and the Persian Gulf.

The full sentence uttered by Dr. Press that gives rise to this article’s title is, from my notes: “We need to be publicly frank about who really are the adversaries, otherwise our communications will lead toward hypocrisy.”

The sponsors of the seminar were the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI). The participants and their credentials are listed at the bottom.

Doomsday Clock

To frame the question more fully, here are essential facts gleaned from the seminar and the Internet:

  1. What kind of nuclear arms are there and what are their purposes?
  2. Which are the nations that have nuclear arms, and how many?
  3. What are factors affecting the continued development and maintenance of nuclear arms?

Strategic: weapons with the greatest range of delivery, with the ability to threaten the adversary’s command and control structure, even though they are based many thousands of miles away in friendly territory. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are the primary delivery platforms for strategic nuclear weapons. The main purpose of strategic weapons is in the deterrence role, under the theory of mutually assured destruction.

Tactical, or “non-strategic”: battlefield weapons, used by a theater commander to offset a numerically superior force. They will be targeted based on rapidly changing local circumstances, not pre-targeted like a strategic weapon. However, even the smallest nuclear weapon is considered a “threshold decision” and is under the control of the highest national authorities, not local commanders. (Source)

Active non-deployed: spare and “responsive” warheads, i.e., those warheads that could be returned to the field quickly to increase the number of deployed warheads. All active warheads are filled with limited life components (e.g., tritium) and are maintained through regular surveillance schedules.

Inactive: warheads still intact but with their tritium removed; thus, it would take longer to return them to service upon a decision to do so.

Nations with Nuclear Arms and their Numbers

deployed warheads 2010

Note: “Deployed” include strategic and tactical warheads. “Other warheads” are active and inactive non-deployed warheads.

Although not discussed in the seminar, the seemingly clear distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is no longer clear:

It is estimated that there are about 2,500 weapons designated as ‘tactical’, of which Russia possesses over 2,000. The United States has fewer than 500, and deploys around 200 of these on the territory of five European countries in accordance with agreements between the United States and its NATO allies. To describe these as ‘tactical’ or ‘theatre’ nuclear weapons (TNW) is misleading outside the context of the Cold War, when over 10,000 were deployed. Though China, France, Israel, India and Pakistan also have short to intermediate range weapons in their arsenals, it is unlikely that these would be classified as ‘tactical’ and considered distinct from these countries’ longer range (strategic) nuclear arsenals. Nowadays it is understood that any crossing of the threshold to use nuclear weapons would have strategic consequences.
(Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy).

Nonetheless, at least two of the four panelists made this distinction due, I believe, to the fact that governments and the communication media still use the terms. There seems to be a lag time between the development of current realities and the ability of the diplomatic and other organizational machinery, and the media, to keep pace. Also, publicly discussing the reduction of the number of strategic warheads provides good political theater for politicians in Russia and the USA.

Using the questionable distinction, it seems that strategic weapons, holdovers in Russia and the USA from the Cold War, are less of a threat than the smaller (but extremely destructive in their potential), tactical weapons. To quote further from the Acronym Institute:

Tactical nuclear weapons are portable, vulnerable and readily usable. They are potentially destabilizing and create additional risks and insecurities, including possible acquisition and use by terrorists. The risk of terrorist acquisition should not be over-stated, and the bombs are protected by a variety of timers, switches, mechanical and electronic locks and procedural safeguards against any attempt to bring about an unauthorised nuclear explosion, but the possibility of detonating at least a radiological ‘dirty’ bomb cannot be discounted.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev after signing the new START treaty

The latest START treaty deals only with strategic weapons, those held solely by Russia and the USA:

Under terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty… It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. Also, it will limit the number of deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 700. The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits…The treaty places no limits on tactical systems… (Source). [Emphasis added by Pavellas].

NATO’s “tactical” nuclear bombs in Europe are all owned by the United States and are stored under the control of the US Air Force. So, a discussion about Europe’s security necessarily involves discussion of NATO and the USA, which it did during this seminar.

Although the tone of my article, so far, may be seen as toward the negative, the full discussion by the panel’s participants provided many nuggets which I duly offer here:

  • The new START Treaty is a positive development in that it will cause a reduction in nuclear warheads, will restore the idea of nuclear accountability and provides a legal framework for reduction.
  • For nations, it is quietly recognized that tactical nuclear weapons have no military value, but are used primarily for political purposes, e.g., in “signaling” other nations about capabilities and intentions. (This does not address the dangers of nuclear arms in the possession of non-nation entities, such as terrorist organizations).
  • The domino theory of nuclear arms proliferation (i.e., if country A gets them it will induce country B to get them) is contestable by the facts. For instance, North Korea has them, but South Korea doesn’t and says it won’t. But, of course, the USA has promised to defend South Korea.
  • Existing nuclear warheads need to be maintained to be operational, and this is a costly enterprise. The implication is that older warheads will not be maintained fully over time and that there will be a decline in their numbers and capability, everywhere. However, new warheads can be produced by those countries with the means in the “tactical” realm without violating treaties and other public promises.
  • Other perceived threats to humans seem more immediate and needful for attention that the funding of nuclear weapon development, such as: climate change, pandemics and secure national borders.
  • There is increasing transparency (i.e., visibility) of those activities that threaten national and world stability. This transparency aids the work of civil, i.e., non-governmental, advocacy organizations such as IKFF, university research departments and private think tanks, some of  which were represented at this seminar (see below). Timely and publicly available oversight by such organizations can lead to more timely responses to threats to peace and freedom. (I refer the reader to my article Civil Society Must Succeed Where Governments Have Failed)

Seminar Speakers

Pavel Podvig: affiliate and former research associate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.

Daryl G. Press: Associate Professor of Government, Dartmouth University.

Fredrik Westerlund: Security policy analyst, Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI).

Petra Tötterman Andorff: Secretary General, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Sweden (IKFF).

Suggested Resources

Nuclear arms control and non-proliferation: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Strategic Outlook 2010Swedish Defence Research Agency (PDF)

Center for International Security and Cooperation: Publications on Nuclear Proliferation Issues

The Nuclear Dimension of US Primacy (PDF): by Daryl G. Press

Internet Links provided by: The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

Dismantle the War Economy Committee: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy, by Bruce G. Blair and Chen Yali

The Future of Nuclear Weapons in NATO, by Ian Anthony and Johnny Janssen