January 2010
USCM Winter Meeting in DC

Thank you very much, Mayor Kautz, Mr. Nickels, Mr. Tom Cochran, fellow mayors, andhonorable guests, for providing me with this opportunity to speak at your winter meeting.
I cannot properly express how honored and privileged I feel to address two consecutive
meetings of this august organization. Last year in Providence, I spoke of the great hope thatPresident Obama had aroused throughout the world that the country with the longest history
with nuclear weapons would lead the world in jointly renouncing these weapons of massdestruction. As with so many other high hopes, seven months on, we see the need for arecalibration. I would like to propose such a recalibration today, in the hopes that it will allow
the USCM to contribute more effectively to ending the mutual hostage-taking of the Cold
War before any US, Russian, or Chinese cities come to harm.
Here I refer to the path-breaking “Cities Are Not Targets!” resolution adopted by the USCM
2006 summer meeting in Las Vegas. The resolution expressed dismay that stability between
East and West was perceived to rest on the capacity of each side to destroy in a matter ofhours most if not all of each other’s major cities. With the Cold War long over and with newthreats now more urgent, the resolution called on all sides to renounce the targeting of cities
and seek the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Following up on letters from the USCM, members of Mayors for Peace in the United States
met in Washington with the Russian Ambassador and the Chinese Minister Consul. The
meetings were cordial, your demand was recognized as legitimate, but the ultimate outcome
was silence. We also followed up with the Defense Department and the State Department.
State said that targeting policy was not within its purview, referring us to Defense; but
Defense had already ruled out any discussion whatsoever on targeting. Mayors for Peace
members encountered similar stonewalling by the other nuclear powers.
I was able to join several British colleagues for a discussion with the Foreign andCommonwealth Office in London. At first they disingenuously claimed that they were nottargeting cities because all their weapons had been ‘de-targeted.’ Once they acknowledgedthat de-targeted weapons can be re-targeted, they quickly assured us that cities were nottargeted “as such.” If even a minor military or economic target was in or near a city, well,tough luck for that city! In subsequent, correspondence we were informed that all targeting
was done in strict conformity with international law. We therefore pressed them to confirm
that cities were not targets since the wholesale destruction of a city could not possibly be inconformity with international law. I must admit I was surprised by their reply. They asserted
that British deterrence was “enhanced” by ambiguity over whether or not cities were in facttargets – end of discussion. So for the sake of a more perfect deterrence, Britain was and isperfectly willing to threaten the genocidal mass destruction of cities.
Our pursuit of a safer world for cities is not selfish. In the first case, cities are now home toover half of humanity; it is our responsibility as mayors to look after the safety of our citizens
1January 2010
USCM Winter Meeting in DCand their property. But – in a nuclear armed world – cities also constitute a danger to theworld as a whole. Scientists now tell us that as few as one hundred nuclear weapons could
cause a billion deaths due to catastrophic climate change. To a nuclear weapon, a city isnothing more than a super-sized tinderbox waiting to be ignited. The result is a firestorm withtemperatures many times higher than regular fires. The heat of that fire reduces the city totons of soot, which is lofted high above rain clouds. The soot from 100 firestorms would
block enough sunlight to destroy crops and cause famine on a scale unprecedented in humanhistory. Hundreds of millions would simply starve to death. Hundreds of millions more
would suffer from serious malnutrition and fall victim to pandemics sweeping the globe.
Climatologists, agriculturalists, and physicians conservatively estimate one billion additional
deaths in the decade following firestorms in just 100 cities. I will not go into the even morehorrendous consequences of the destruction of 2000 cities by the nuclear weapons now readyto launch on warning. Suffice it to say that everything we have worked for and accomplishedin a million years of human evolution could be wiped out in less time than it will take me tofinish this speech – which I promise will not be too long!
What, you may be asking, does this have to do with President Obama?! Everything!
In his Prague speech, President Obama made several references to the threat nuclear weapons
pose to cities, and to the larger threat, in turn, to the world. Let me quote just one:
“One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -– be it New York or Moscow,Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague –- could kill hundredsof thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what
the consequences might be -– for our global safety, our security, our society, oureconomy, to our ultimate survival.”[End quote.]
But the President did not intend just to frighten people; in the Prague speech he did something
far more profound: he called for a global ‘Velvet Revolution’ against the twenty-first century
counterpart to the oppression of totalitarianism of the twentieth century: the fear of nuclear
weapons. He equated those who would stand in the way of our liberation from the nuclear
threat to those who counseled against confronting dictators. Again I quote:“Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right ofpeople everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. … we, too, must ignore thevoices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."”[On your table you will find an abridged version of the Prague speech. I urge you to read it;
indeed to read the full speech.] Coming from a U.S. President, this is powerful stuff. He also
said:

2January 2010
USCM Winter Meeting in DC“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral
responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we canstart it.”
I will talk later about this important reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki; but let me focus
now on the words ‘lead’ and ‘start’. Six months after that speech, we must ask: Has President
Obama started the endeavor? Is the United States providing leadership? Are we on the roadto success; to, in his words, “the safety of a world without nuclear weapons”? We have mostdefinitely seen a start: it is even called START! That is the START replacement treaty [soonto be][just] concluded. This is an important development and a most encouraging sign.
But is it leadership? The other nuclear-armed states are waiting for Russia and the UnitedStates to cut their bloated arsenals a good deal further before they will join in the reductions
process; and the rest of the world has been waiting since 1970 – when they renounced theacquisition of nuclear weapons – for the nuclear powers to fulfill their promise of nuclear
disarmament. So who is in the forefront?
We can question the leadership also in terms of overall direction. If your citizens felt it weretime for a new football stadium and you proposed to start by building one bleacher, fifty yardsof field and one goal post, you would be laughed out of town. And yet, all of the proposals
we hear from the United States to date are of this piecemeal nature. In contrast, the UN
Secretary General has proposed a five-point plan with takes a truly comprehensive approachto this great endeavor. The key point is his call for negotiations to begin on a Nuclear
Weapons Convention. In 2008, the USCM also supported a comprehensive approach when
you endorsed the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol.
I remain profoundly grateful to you because U.S. leadership is essential. I continue to believe
President Obama is both willing and able to provide it, but we have to think carefully about
what keeps the US from moving more forcefully on this issue.
It would be easy to say that after Prague, President Obama discovered how difficult it is tomake progress on nuclear arms. There is indeed a kernel of truth to this: the piecemeal
approach is actually extremely difficult. At each step, one side or the other feels it is getting
the short end of the bargain. If they cannot look down the road and see that they will get afair, secure deal in the end, then they are going to resist cutting the initial deal. A short-sightapproach invites delays and misgivings.
However, I want to suggest that the US leadership deficit on this crucial issue is due toanother factor. In a democratic society, a president needs to show results if he/she wants to be
re-elected and serve another term. President Obama wants to accomplish great things in manydifferent areas of public life. In an ideal world, he could deliver on all of them. In the realworld, he can only deliver on those that are politically ripe for action. Thus, it would seem3

January 2010
USCM Winter Meeting in DC

that, up till now, the President has observed no significant public groundswell demanding a
nuclear-weapon-free world. As much as he might wish to lead us there, he does not want to
set forth only to find that the troops are not behind him.
You and I know that there is broad public support for ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
No doubt President Obama knows this as well. But what political form does this support
take? Who represents this opinion across the country? Will strong action against nuclear
weapons bring votes in 2012? These are the questions Obama needs to hear answers to; andthese are the questions for which YOU mayors can provide answers.
When you and your USCM representatives meet with the President and his advisers, you will
have an ambitious agenda. In these hard economic times, you need to be focused to get
results that will make a material difference in the life of your citizens. With only a limited
amount of time to make your pitch, can you afford to point out to the President that “Cities
Are Not Targets!”? Can you afford to reiterate the suggestion in last year’s resolution that thePresident use the upcoming conference to review the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons to launch negotiations for a nuclear-weapon-free world by the year 2020?
Before you say, “NO,” allow me to point out the immense power of saying “YES.” Given thePresident’s appreciation of the dire needs of cities, just imagine how impressed he (and hisaides) would be if you did take the time to say just these few words,“Mr. President, we want to free our cities from the nuclear threat. If you makethe effort at the upcoming NPT Review Conference to put the world on course toa nuclear-weapon-free world in 2020, we will enthusiastically support you. You
can count on us!”
And there is another very simple way to add real weight to such a request for leadership.
Please become part of the global network of cities that share this goal. I mean, of course,
please join Mayors for Peace. We have just launched the most ambitious recruitment drive inthe history of cities: the ‘Cities Are Not Targets!’ Membership Drive. By the May NPT
Review Conference, we intend to grow from 3500 to 5000 members. I hope that at least 250of those 5000 will be US cities. US membership stands currently at 150, and many ofAmerica’s greatest cities are already members: Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Orleans,Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles.
Large or small, you are all welcome in our network.
When we reach 5000, our member mayors will speak on behalf of one billion citizens. Let’s
use that to convince President Obama and leaders throughout the world that the time is truly
ripe for a comprehensive approach to achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world. Let us –mayors and cities – lead the Velvet Revolution that President Obama called for in Prague!

4January 2010
USCM Winter Meeting in DC

Please will allow me one further point. President Obama, as I quoted, referred to the special
responsibility that accrues to being the sole country to have used a nuclear weapon. I cannot
tell you how warmly those few words were received by the citizens of Hiroshima, especiallythe survivors of 1945, who were just children at the time. But I want to say this: if you aregoing to take a comprehensive approach to a problem you need to grasp it comprehensively.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an essential part of this whole; personally visiting Hiroshima andNagasaki, as past Presidents of the US Conference of Mayors have done, is a natural part ofcoming to terms with the true scope of the problem.
I was heartened, during his lightning visit to Japan last fall, by President Obama’s response toa question about visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said it would be “ meaningful.”
He is right. It would be extremely meaningful, so I hope that, working together, we can find away of encouraging him to make that visit soon. If you have a chance, please assure him that
he would receive a warm, deeply respectful reception and a profoundly moving experience.
On that you have my word of honor.
Thank you.

5