BANNUCLEAR WEAPONSNOWThe International Campaign.docx

BAN
NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
NOW
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
(ICAN)
is a global coalition of non-government organizations working
for
a nuclear-weapon-free world. We are urging all nations to start
negotiations now on a treaty banning nuclear weapons
completely.
“If Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr were
alive today, they would be part of ICAN.”
MARTIN SHEEN, actor and activist
about ican
Published July 2013
Text and design: Tim Wright
Contact: [email protected]
Nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass
destruction not yet prohibited
by an international convention,
even though they have the

greatest destructive capacity
of all weapons. A global ban
on nuclear weapons is long
overdue and can be achieved
in the near future with enough
public pressure and political
leadership. A ban would not only
make it illegal for nations to use
or possess nuclear weapons; it
would also help pave the way
to their complete elimination.
Nations committed to reaching
the goal of abolition should
begin negotiating a ban now.
CATASTROPHIC HARM
Many thousands of nuclear
weapons remain in the world,
despite the end of the cold
war. The detonation of just
one nuclear bomb over a
large city could kill more than
a million people. The use
of tens or hundreds could
disrupt the global climate,
causing widespread agricultural
collapse and famine. No matter
the scale of the attack, an
adequate humanitarian response
would not be possible. Given
the catastrophic effects of
nuclear weapons, banning and
eradicating them is the only
responsible course of action.

FULFILLING OBLIGATIONS
International law obliges all
nations to pursue in good faith
and conclude negotiations for
nuclear disarmament. However,
the nuclear-armed nations have
so far failed to present a clear
road map to a nuclear-weapon-
free world. All are investing
heavily in the modernization of
their nuclear forces, with the
apparent intention of retaining
them for many decades to
come. Continued failure on
disarmament is not an option.
So long as nuclear weapons exist,
there is a real danger they will
be used again – by accident or
intent. A ban is urgently needed.
Why a nuclear weapons ban
1
A treaty banning nuclear weapons is a global humanitarian
imperative
of the highest order. It is achievable and increasingly urgent.
NUCLEAR NATIONS
Nations with nuclear
weapons of their own
Britain, China, France, India,
Israel, North Korea, Pakistan,
Russia, United States

Nations that host US
nuclear weapons
Belgium, Germany, Italy,
Netherlands, Turkey
Other nations in
nuclear alliances
Albania, Australia, Bulgaria,
Canada, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Japan, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, South Korea, Spain
Negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons
should be undertaken by
committed nations even without
the participation of those
armed with nuclear weapons.
The alternative is to continue
allowing the nuclear-armed
nations to control the process
and perpetuate two-tier systems
and treaty regimes that have no
power to compel disarmament.
A GLOBAL PROHIBITION
A nuclear weapons ban would
globalize what nuclear-weapon-
free zone treaties have done

regionally – for Latin America
and the Caribbean, the South
Pacific, Southeast Asia, Central
Asia and Africa. It would allow
nations in any part of the world
to formalize their rejection
of nuclear weapons and help
create a clear international legal
norm against the possession
of nuclear weapons. Similarly,
a ban would build on, and
reinforce, the Non-Proliferation
Treaty and Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty – which, although
having helped prevent the use
and limit the spread of nuclear
weapons, are insufficient to
achieve disarmament. A nuclear
weapons ban is the missing piece
for a broad legal rejection of all
weapons of mass destruction.
ACHIEVING ELIMINATION
The prohibition of weapons
typically precedes and stimulates
their elimination, not the other
way around. For example, the
prohibition of biological and
chemical weapons has been an
essential step in ongoing efforts
towards their elimination. Like
the biological and chemical
weapons conventions, a nuclear
weapons ban would allow

nations with stockpiles of these
weapons to join so long as they
agree to eliminate them within a
specified time frame. Once such
nations have joined, agreements
could be developed over time
to ensure that stockpiles are
destroyed in a verifiable and
irreversible manner. The ban
treaty itself need not necessarily
envisage every complex step
towards elimination by all
nations. Instead it would put in
place the basic framework for
reaching that goal. Underpinning
the growing call for a ban is
a firm belief that changing
the “rules” regarding nuclear
weapons would have a significant
impact beyond those states that
may formally adopt such an
instrument at the outset. The
ban treaty, once in force, would
powerfully challenge any notion
that possessing nuclear weapons
is legitimate for particular states.
How a ban treaty would work
2
A treaty banning nuclear weapons is the next vital step towards
nuclear abolition.
It should be pursued now, with or without the support of
nuclear-armed nations.

BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS
Banned under the Biological
Weapons Convention
1972
CHEMICAL
WEAPONS
Banned under the Chemical
Weapons Convention
1993
LAND
MINES
Banned under the Anti-
Personnel Mine Ban Treaty
1997
CLUSTER
MUNITIONS
Banned under the Convention
on Cluster Munitions
2008
NUCLEAR

WEAPONS
NOT YET BANNED
BY TREATY
weapons already banned
There are already international conventions prohibiting
biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines
and cluster munitions, but no comparable treaty – as
yet – for nuclear weapons. The international community
must address this legal anomaly. As with the negotiating
processes that resulted in treaties banning land mines
and cluster munitions, likeminded governments should
work in close partnership with civil society to bring about
a nuclear weapons ban regardless of resistance from
states possessing the weapons.
7 7 7 7
3
At the UN, three in four nations
– including all of Latin America,
the Caribbean and Africa – have
supported the goal of prohibiting
nuclear weapons. They must
now translate this support for the
goal of a ban into action to start
negotiations on a treaty.
MORE THAN 150
GOVERNMENTS

RED CROSS AND RED
CRESCENT MOVEMENT
UNITED NATIONS
SECRETARY-GENERAL
FOUR IN FIVE
PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
The International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement – the
largest humanitarian organization
in the world, with close to 100
million volunteers and staff – has
called for a binding agreement to
prohibit the use of and completely
eliminate nuclear weapons.
UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon has highlighted the
lack of an international treaty
outlawing nuclear weapons, and
has consistently spoken in favour
of prohibiting and eliminating
nuclear weapons. He has also
lent his support to ICAN.
On average, four in five people
polled since 2008 in 26 nations
have said “yes” to a nuclear
weapons ban, including most
people in each nuclear-armed
state. Since 2010, 20 million
petition signatures have been
sent to the UN calling for a ban.

global support for a ban
4
“My advice, my appeal to all, is this: Be a first mover. Don’t
look to others or to your neighbours
to start disarmament and arms control measures. If you take the
lead, others will follow.”
BAN KI-MOON, UN Secretary-General, 2013
5
In recent years, governments,
civil society and international
organizations have refocused
their attention on the original
cause of public opposition to
nuclear weapons – namely,
their devastating effects on
people and the environment.
In March 2013 the Norwegian
government hosted the
first ever intergovernmental
conference to address the
threat of nuclear weapons
from a purely humanitarian
perspective. Participants
included 128 governments, the
Red Cross movement, several
UN agencies and civil society
under the banner of ICAN. Most

nations argued that the only way
to prevent the use of nuclear
weapons is to ban and eliminate
them. At the conclusion of the
conference, Mexico announced
that it would host a follow-up
conference in 2014.
ICAN forum: Actor Martin Sheen
on stage with activist John Dear
in Oslo. Credit: Alexander Harang
DEVASTATING EFFECTS
6
7
Since 2010 the catastrophic humanitarian impact of
nuclear weapons has featured
prominently in discussions
among governments and civil
society organizations on ways to
advance nuclear disarmament.
This emerging discourse on
the harm that nuclear weapons
cause to people, societies and
the environment underscores
the urgency of concerted action
for the complete prohibition and
elimination of such weapons.
Their devastating effects on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and
through testing, have been well

documented, and provide a clear
rationale for negotiating a ban.
PUBLIC MOBILIZATION
The success of a ban depends
on the active engagement of
civil society. Since 2007 the
International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a
diverse coalition of groups in
70 nations, has sought to raise
public awareness about nuclear
dangers and empower people
to work for a ban. We have
held conferences, workshops,
exhibitions, film screenings
and protests around the world,
and have raised our call for a
ban at the UN, in parliaments,
in schools and online. Our
simple demand has been widely
and enthusiastically embraced.
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
Nuclear-free nations have long
complained of the lack of
progress being made towards
nuclear disarmament. Many
have expressed grave concern
at the continuing build-up and
modernization of nuclear forces.
Though frustrated, they are
not without influence. After all,
they make up the overwhelming

majority of states. Working
effectively together, they could
put in place a powerful legal
ban on nuclear weapons, which
would not only stigmatize the
weapons, but also build the
pressure for disarmament. It is
time to change the game.
Achieving a nuclear weapons ban
There is a clear and compelling humanitarian case for
prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Achieving that goal requires public mobilization and political
leadership.
ACTION FOR A BAN
Governments should:
• Highlight the catastrophic
humanitarian impact of
nuclear weapons
• Call for negotiations
without delay on a treaty
banning nuclear weapons
• Join forces with like-
minded governments to
make a ban treaty a reality
Civil society should:
• Raise public awareness
about the harm caused by

nuclear weapons
• Form strong coalitions
of organizations with the
specific demand of a ban
on nuclear weapons
1. Could a ban be negotiated
without nuclear-armed nations?
Yes. Although the nine nuclear-
armed nations should be strongly
encouraged to join negotiations
for a ban, their participation would
not be essential. They should not
be allowed to prevent or hold up
negotiations. Nuclear-free nations
could initiate a negotiating process
and even adopt the final treaty text
without having all or indeed any of
the nuclear-armed nations on board.
Agreements relating to the verified
dismantlement of nuclear warheads
could be developed with the nuclear-
armed nations at a later stage once
they are ready to engage. But it is
important to get the ball rolling now
and put in place a clear legal ban.
Once negotiations are under way,
any nation – whether nuclear-free
or not – would be welcome to join
the negotiating process so long as
it accepted the goal of concluding a
ban treaty by an agreed date.

2. Could nations in nuclear
alliances help negotiate a ban?
Yes. Several NATO members have
already called for intensified efforts
to outlaw nuclear weapons, and all
have agreed to the ultimate goal of
elimination. Abandoning NATO or a
bilateral nuclear defence pact would
not be a precondition for joining
a ban treaty. However, nuclear-
dependent nations would need to
work towards achieving a nuclear-
free defence posture after joining.
3. Would a ban treaty help curb the
spread of nuclear weapons?
Yes. Nuclear non-proliferation and
disarmament are two sides of the
same coin. Efforts to prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons will
be successful only once potential
proliferators can see that real
progress is being made towards
elimination. Existing legal double
standards fuel proliferation. A ban
would set the same rules for all.
4. How would a ban relate to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty?
A ban treaty would complement
and reinforce, rather than replace,
the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), which would remain in force
for as long as its parties determine.
Article VI of the NPT obliges nations
to pursue negotiations in good faith

for nuclear disarmament. Adopting
a nuclear weapons ban would be
a step towards implementing this
fundamental provision of the treaty.
A ban would also build on the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and
nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties.
5. What are the practical benefits
of stigmatizing nuclear weapons?
A ban on nuclear weapons would
strengthen the global taboo against
the use and possession of weapons
of mass destruction. It would put
pressure on nuclear-armed nations
to suspend their nuclear weapons
modernization programmes and to
work towards complete abolition. It
would challenge allies of nuclear-
armed nations to end their support
for the indefinite retention of nuclear
forces. And it would provide a strong
basis for arguing that financial
institutions everywhere should divest
from companies involved in nuclear
weapons production. In short, it
would challenge all those who help
sustain our nuclear-armed world.
6. What are the security benefits
of negotiating a ban?
A ban on nuclear weapons would
enhance everyone’s security – not
least of all the security of people in
nations currently armed with nuclear

weapons, who are more likely to
be the targets of a nuclear attack.
People in nuclear-free nations
are also at risk, as the effects of
nuclear weapons transcend national
boundaries. Even a “limited” regional
nuclear war would have implications
for the entire globe.
8
Frequently asked questions
Street action: Campaigners thank nations for
attending the Oslo conference on the humanitarian
impact of nuclear weapons in March 2013.
What does your government say about a ban on nuclear
weapons?
See our comprehensive online guide to national positions at
www.icanw.org
www.icanw.org
BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOW
“With your support, we can take ICAN its full distance – all the
way to zero nuclear weapons.”
DESMOND TUTU, social rights activist
“I can imagine a world without nuclear weapons, and I support
ICAN.”

THE DALAI LAMA, Tibetan spiritual leader
“We can do it together! With your help, our voice will be made
still stronger.”
YOKO ONO, peace activist and artist
“I salute ICAN for working with such commitment and
creativity.”
BAN KI-MOON, UN Secretary-General
Title: Of The 1%, By The 1%, For The 1%
RSPEAK_STOP
Author(s): Joseph E. Stiglitz
Source: Vanity Fair. 53.5 (May 2011): p126.
Document Type: Article
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 Conde Nast Publications, Inc.
please do not remove this
comment, in place to remove the extra space . All rights
reserved. Reproduced by
permission of The Conde Nast Publications Inc.
http://www.vanityfair.com/
RSPEAK_START
do not remove
FT/IMG
Full Text:
Byline: BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ ILLUSTRATION BY
STEPHEN DOYLE
OF THE 1%, BY THE 1%, FOR THE 1%
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive
regimes that concentrate
massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own

democracy, 1 percent of the
people take nearly a quarter of the nation's income-an inequality
even the wealthy will
come to regret
It's no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not
in fact happened. The
upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter
of the nation's income
every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1
percent control 40 percent.
Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years
ago, the corresponding
figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be
to celebrate the ingenuity
and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to
contend that a rising tide lifts
all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1
percent have seen their
incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the
middle have actually seen their
incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the
decline has been precipitous12
percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in
recent decadesand morehas
gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America
lags behind any country in
the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to
deride. Among our closest
counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many
of the old centers of
inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving
in recent years, rather
successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps
in income, America has
allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that

seemed so troubling in the
mid-19th centuryinequalities that are but a pale shadow of what
we are seeing in America
http://www.vanityfair.com/
today. The justification they came up with was called
"marginal-productivity theory." In a
nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher
productivity and a greater
contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been
cherished by the rich. Evidence
for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives
who helped bring on the
recession of the past three yearswhose contribution to our
society, and to their own
companies, has been massively negativewent on to receive large
bonuses. In some cases,
companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards
"performance bonuses" that
they felt compelled to change the name to "retention bonuses"
(even if the only thing
being retained was bad performance). Those who have
contributed great positive
innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic
understanding to the pioneers of
the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with
those responsible for the
financial innovations that brought our global economy to the
brink of ruin.
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their
shoulders. So what if this person
gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not
how the pie is divided but
the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An

economy in which most
citizens are doing worse year after yearan economy like
America'sis not likely to do well
over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else:
shrinking opportunity.
Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we
are not using some of
our most valuable assetsour peoplein the most productive way
possible. Second, many of
the distortions that lead to inequalitysuch as those associated
with monopoly power and
preferential tax treatment for special interestsundermine the
efficiency of the economy.
This new inequality goes on to create new distortions,
undermining efficiency even
further. To give just one example, far too many of our most
talented young people, seeing
the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than
into fields that would lead to
a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires
"collective action"it
needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and
technology. The United
States and the world have benefited greatly from government-
sponsored research that led
to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But
America has long suffered
from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the
condition of our highways and
bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in
education at all levels.
Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
None of this should come as a surpriseit is simply what happens
when a society's wealth

distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society
becomes in terms of wealth,
the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on
common needs. The rich don't
need to rely on government for parks or education or medical
care or personal
securitythey can buy all these things for themselves. In the
process, they become more
distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may
once have had. They
also worry about strong governmentone that could use its
powers to adjust the balance,
take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good.
The top 1 percent may
complain about the kind of government we have in America, but
in truth they like it just
fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything
but lower taxes.
THE MORE UNEQUAL A SOCIETY IS, THE MORE
RELUCTANT THE WEALTHY
BECOME TO SPEND ON COMMON NEEDS. THE RICH
DON'T NEED
GOVERNMENT BENEFITS-THEY CAN BUY THESE THINGS
FOR THEMSELVES.
Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing
inequality in America. The
ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played
a role: laborsaving
technologies have reduced the demand for many "good" middle-
class, blue-collar jobs.
Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting
expensive unskilled workers
in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social

changes have also played a
rolefor instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a
third of American
workers and now represent about 12 percent.
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is
that the top 1 percent want it
that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy.
Lowering tax rates on capital
gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their
income, has given the
wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near
monopolies have always
been a source of economic powerfrom John D. Rockefeller at
the beginning of the last
century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust
laws, especially during
Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1
percent. Much of today's
inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system,
enabled by changes in the rules
that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry
itselfone of its best
investments ever. The government lent money to financial
institutions at close to 0
percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable
terms when all else failed.
Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to
conflicts of interest.
When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the
top 1 percent in this
country, it's tempting to see our growing inequality as a
quintessentially American
achievementwe started way behind the pack, but now we're
doing inequality on a world-
class level. And it looks as if we'll be building on this
achievement for years to come,

because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets
power, which begets
more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980sa
scandal whose
dimensions, by today's standards, seem almost quaintthe banker
Charles Keating was
asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he
had spread among a few
key elected officials could actually buy influence. "I certainly
hope so," he replied. The
Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined
the right of corporations
to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign
spending. The personal and the
political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S.
senators, and most of the
representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent
when they arrive, are kept
in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they
serve the top 1 percent
well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave
office. By and large, the
key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic
policy also come from the top
1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-
dollar giftthrough
legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of
drugs, from bargaining over
priceit should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make
jaws drop that a tax bill
cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in
place for the wealthy. Given
the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect

the system to work.
America's inequality distorts our society in every conceivable
way. There is, for one
thing, a well-documented lifestyle effectpeople outside the top 1
percent increasingly live
beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera,
but trickle-down
behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our
foreign policy. The top 1
percent rarely serve in the militarythe reality is that the "all-
volunteer" army does not pay
enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes
only so far. Plus, the
wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the
nation goes to war: borrowed
money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is
about the balancing of
national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent
in charge, and paying no
price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window.
There is no limit to the
adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand
only to gain. The rules
of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the
rich: they encourage
competition among countries for business, which drives down
taxes on corporations,
weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines
what used to be viewed
as the "core" labor rights, which include the right to collective
bargaining. Imagine what
the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to
encourage competition
among countries for workers. Governments would compete in
providing economic
security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education,

and a clean
environmentthings workers care about. But the top 1 percent
don't need to care.
AS WE WATCH THE FERVOR ACROSS THE ARAB WORLD-
WHERE A
FRACTION OF THE POPULATION CONTROLS THE LION'S
SHARE OF THE
WEALTH-WE MUST ASK: WHEN WILL IT COME TO
AMERICA?
Or, more accurately, they think they don't. Of all the costs
imposed on our society by the
top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our
sense of identity, in which
fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are
so important. America
has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone
has an equal chance of
getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances
of a poor citizen, or even a
middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller
than in many countries
of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of
an unjust system without
opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the
Middle East: rising food prices
and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served
as kindling. With youth
unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some
locations, and among some
socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six
Americans desiring a full-
time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans
on food stamps (and about

the same number suffering from "food insecurity")given all this,
there is ample evidence
that something has blocked the vaunted "trickling down" from
the top 1 percent to
everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of
creating alienationvoter
turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21
percent, comparable to
the unemployment rate.
In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by
the millions to protest
political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive
societies they inhabit.
Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests
have erupted in Libya,
Yemen, and Bahrain.
The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously
from their air-conditioned
penthouseswill they be next? They are right to worry. These are
societies where a
minuscule fraction of the populationless than 1 percentcontrols
the lion's share of the
wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where
entrenched corruption of
one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest
often stand actively in the
way of policies that would improve life for people in general.
As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question
to ask ourselves is this:
When will it come to America? In important ways, our own
country has become like one
of these distant, troubled places.
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief
part of the peculiar genius of
American societysomething he called "self-interest properly
understood." The last two

words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a
narrow sense: I want what's
good for me right now! Self-interest "properly understood" is
different. It means
appreciating that paying attention to everyone else's self-
interestin other words, the
common welfareis in fact a precondition for one's own ultimate
well-being. Tocqueville
was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic
about this outlookin fact,
he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American
pragmatism. Those canny
Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other
guy isn't just good for the
soulit's good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the
best doctors, and the best
lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn't seem to
have bought: an
understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99
percent live. Throughout
history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do
learn. Too late.
FROM THE ARCHIVE
For these related stories, visit VF.COM/ARCHIVE
George W. Bush's crippling economic legacy (Joseph E.
Stiglitz, December 2007)
Wall Street's toxic message (Joseph E. Stiglitz, July 2009)
Auteurs of the Old Establishment (Nicholas Lemann, October
1994)
The decline and fall of the Old Establishment (David
Halberstam, October 1994)
CAPTION(S):

THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS
The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and
lifestyles, says the author,
but "their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”
14214508
FT/IMG
BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ ILLUSTRATION BY STEPHEN
DOYLE
17200454
meta:id:260046735 RSPEAK_STOP
Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition)
Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Of The 1%, By The 1%, For The 1%."
Vanity Fair May 2011: 126.
General OneFile. Web. 17 July 2015.
URL
http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.libpr
oxy.csun.edu/ps/i.do?
id=GALE
%7CA260046735&v=2.1&u=csunorthridge&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=
w&asid=3f1fd708dc48
f5b589c05b77dfa15b76
Gale Document Number: GALE|A260046735
In 40 years, Youngstown has lost more than half its
population. Those people aren't coming back. But shrinking
doesn't have to mean dying. By Christopher Swope
Anthony Kobak has borrowed the
mayor's Ford Taurus for a spin around
Youngstown, but as he steers the sedan

down a pitted asphalt road, he wishes he'd
borrowed a Jeep instead. Driving comes
pretty dose to off-roading in this part of
Youngstown's east side, where the sur-
roundings are mostly fallow lots and a few
scattered homes. Kobak stops at one street
that is little more than a dirt path into the
woods. But it is a city-maintained road all the
same, with water, sewer and power lines.
"We're just io minutes from downtown, but
you can see it's very rural," says Kobak, who
is Youngstown's chief planner. He points
out the window toward a lone deteriorating
house in a field. "Those are chicken coops
over there. You can see the cages."
This part of Youngstown is called
Sharon Line-the name, Kobak explains,
came from a street car route that used to run
through the area. Back in the 195os, this
place was expected to develop into a
bustling urban neighborhood. The steel
mills were still roaring, and with 17o,ooo
residents, Youngstownwas Ohio's seventh-
largest city and the 57 th most populous in
the United States. Planners believed that
the east side would soak up continuing
growth and prosperity. What in fact hap-
pened was quite the opposite. Not only did
suburbanization suck the life out of city
neighborhoods, as happened in much of
America, but in the 197os, the steel mills
dosed and population went into a free-fall.
Quite suddenly, Youngstown's growth
problem had turned into an abandoned-

property problem. In Sharon Line, new
houses simply weren't needed anymore.
The area remained an odd country enclave
tucked inside a fast-dedining city.
Now, Kobak and other Youngstown of-
ficials have come around to a drastically dif-
ferent vision for Sharon Line. No longer are
they holding out for a mirade growth spurt.
Rather, they're embracing the radical idea
of gradually turning this place back to na-
ture. Roads and infrastructure may be taken
out of service. Some properties could be
converted to wetlands. Kobak calls this way
of thinking "going from gray to green,"
and it's not just at work in Sharon Line. In
46 NOVEMBER 2006 GOVERNING
0.
I
Oak Hill, just south of downtown, and in
Brier Hill, to the north, once-vibrant blocks
now plagued by abandoned homes and
weedy lots are candidates to become park-
land, open space and greenways.
In Youngstown these days, an ambi-
tious planning process has come to a halt-
ingly honest conclusion: The city is shrink-

ing. If that point seems obvious enough-
population is now down to about 82,000-
it's one that leaders of other declining cities
stubbornly refuse to admit to themselves.
Cincinnati, Detroit and St. Louis all have fo-
cused on reversing population losses in an
attempt to reclaim bygone glory. By con-
trast, Youngstown's "2o0o Plan" begins by
acknowledging that Youngstown is a small
city now, burdened by the overly ambitious
infrastructure of its past. The plan likens
Youngstown to "a size-4o man wearing a
size-6o suit"
If Youngstown has made peace with its
smaller self, however, its policy makers are
still grappling with the key question: What
does it mean to manage shrinkage in an in-
telligent way? Volumes have been written
about how to implement "smart growth!" But
what about smart decline? Youngstown may
48 NOVEMBER2006 GOVERNING
"We're on our
way to accepting
some obvious
thing s about
what?Youngstown
is and isn't
going to be."
-Mayor Jay Williams
emerge as something of a national labora-
tory for ideas on how to cope with urban con-
traction. It's not that the town's civic leaders
want to be in that position-they simply see

little choice. "We're on our way to accepting
some obvious things about what the city is
and isn't going to be," says Jay Williams,
Youngstown's 35-year-old mayor. "Itwas un-
realistic to think we'll be a loo,ooo person
city. But why not be an attractive city of
8o,ooo or 85,ooo that offers aqualityof life
that competes with other cities across the
state and across the country?"
Or, as Hunter Morrison puts it, "saying
you're a shrinking city is not saying you're
a dying city.' Morrison was Cleveland's city
planner for 20 years and now directs the
urban and regional studies program at
Youngstown State University. "Every city,"
Morrison says, "is looking back to when it
used to be 200,000, 5oo,ooo, a million-
whatever it was at its peak. As Marshall
McLuhan put it, they're always looking to
the future through the rearview mirror.
And what we're saying in Youngstown is,
the past is the past. It's time to turn granny's
picture to the wall."
Global Shrinkage
Youngstown is coming to this self-assess-
ment at a time when the fortunes of urban
America are very much mixed. A decade
ago, population in most industrial-era cities
was continuing a downward glide path that
had been well established since the 195os.
From New York to Seattle, the question
wasn't whether big cities were losing people
to the suburbs. It was how fast.

Then, in the late '9os, many cities began
seeing an urban renaissance, fueled by im-
migration, dropping crime rates and favor-
able demographics. Population losses in
New York and Chicago turned into gains.
(New York, currently at 8.1 million people,
x
has never been larger than it is now.) Other
cities began experiencing a population par-
adox. Boston and San Francisco count
fewer people than they did five years ago, yet
they seem to be in better economic health.
What they're essentially doing is losing
families with school-age children and gain-
ing singles, childless couples and empty
nesters-smaller households with ample
incomes that demand much less in the way
of city services.
But that scenario is not playing out every-
where. In particular, smaller industrial cities,
located mostly in the Northeast and around
the Great Lakes, are finding it almost im-
possible to recover from the decline of their
manufacturing employment base. San Fran-
cisco, Boston and Chicago can prosper in the
21st century as cultural and entertainment
enters with concentrated office and retail ac-
tivity and strong downtown residential
growth. Elmira, Flint and Youngstown can't
realistically nurture any such hopes.

The problem of shrinking industrial
cities is attracting fresh interest in academic
circles and new attention abroad. Since the
Berlin Wall came down, factory towns in
eastern Germany and the former Soviet
Union have been emptying out, forcing gov-
ernments there to grapple with industrial
and residential decay. Longer term, some
European nations and Japan project na-
tional population declines of 20 to 40 per-
cent over the next 50 years, owing to their
low birth rates. German researchers re-
cently published two volumes under the
title Shrink Cities, outlining strategies for
managing urban decline around the world.
Closer to home, a shrinking cities ex-
hibit currently on tour in Europe is set to ar-
rive in New York next month and in Detroit
in February. Also in February, the Institute
of Urban and Regional Development at
the University of California, Berkeley, is
hosting a symposium on the topic. Mean-
while, the Shrinking Cities Institute at Kent
State University is plotting provocative
events in Cleveland, such as an urban camp-
out. "We're trying to get people to recognize
the change that's happened right under
our feet," says Terry Schwarz, a Kent State
planner. "It's a little surprising to see how
much emptiness there is."
This isn't the sort of conversation most
politicians are comfortable having. Instead

of accepting decline and trying to manage
it in a deliberate way, mayors tend to gravi-
tate toward revitalization plans that involve
building convention centers and sports are-
nas and subsidizing hotels and shopping
malls. They also get into desperate fights
with the Census Bureau over population es-
timates and counting methodology. "How
many politicians in America will stand on
a soapbox and say, 'I'm going to lead this
city and we're going to shrink it?'" asks
Joseph Schilling, a professor at Virginia
Tech's Metropolitan Institute.
The urban planning profession is not
well equipped to handle shrinkage, either.
Planning literature is fundamentally ori-
ented toward growth and how to manage it.
That's true of tools such as zoning regula-
tions and pattern books, and it's true of plan-
ning creeds such as New Urbanism and
"sustainable development." As Schilling
says, "We have two predominant planning
models in this country. One is growth,
growth, growth. The other is redevelopment.
50 NOVEMBER2006 GOVERNING
a-
0
I
a.
0

I
0
t"I
That third approach-rightsizing cities-is
not something that we've done a lot with."
There's one more force that has quietly
but powerfiuly prevented cities from coming
to terms with contraction. As cities lose peo-
ple, they also lose federal and state aid, even
as the woes of concentrated poverty and
surplus infrastructure worsen. Meanwhile,
federal, state and local policies continue
subsidizing new development in the sub-
,We're trying
to get peqple
to recognize
the change
tflat's hajppenedright under
our Teet. I"nghu It"'Sc"
little surprising
to see how
much mptiness
there is.
-Terry Schwarz,
Kent State planner
urbs and exurbs. "When you go to an eco-
nomically struggling city in Europe, they are
more vital and vibrant than American cities,

even though they've experienced the same
economic shocks such as loss of the steel
sector or the decline of coal," says Bruce
Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy
program at the Brookings Institution.
"That's because they don't sprawl as much.'
New Faces
Youngstown's cycle of industrial boom and
bust may sound familiar. But few cities
that have gone through that cycle fell so far
so fast. The Mahoning Valley was the na-
tion's third-largest steel-producing center.
Then on September 19, 19 77-"Black Mon-
day"-Youngstown Sheet & Tube an-
nounced it was shutting down. U.S. Steel
and Republic Steel followed suit. Seem-
ingly overnight, 40,000 jobs evaporated.
Steelworkers abandoned homes by the
thousands, crime reached epidemic levels
and a plague of corruption settled in, sym-
bolized most infamously by former U.S.
Representative Jim Traficant, who eventu-
ally went to prison on bribery charges.
Lately, though, a new generation of civic
leaders has come of age in Youngstown.
Mayor Williams, a home-born banker who
also worked as the city's community devel-
opment director, was just five years old on
Black Monday. Several key positions are in
the hands of outsiders whose thoughts
aren't haunted by ghosts of the mills. An-
thony Kobak, Youngstown's planner, ar-
rived from Cleveland in 2000. So did David
Sweet, the president of Youngstown State

University, who had previously been dean of
the urban affairs program at Cleveland State.
A year later, Sweet asked Hunter Mor-
rison to join him. "Many of the politicians
and the business leadership who were here
when things collapsed either retired, moved
or died," Morrison says. "One thing that
happened in the 2010 planning process is
people looked around and said, 'You know
what? The boss is dead. We don't have to
ask permission anymore."
The 2010 plan emerged from an un-
usual town-gown partnership. One of
Sweet's first tasks at Youngstown State was
to create a new campus plan. Meanwhile,
the city was gearing up to re-write its com-
prehensive plan for the first time since
1951. Strategists on both sides saw the ben-
efit of intertwining their efforts. The uni-
versity, which sits on a bluff above down-
town, is not only Youngstown's biggest
employer but an obvious potential catalyst
for new development. The city's deteriora-
tion, however, is a liability in recruiting stu-
dents and faculty.
The city hired Toronto-based Urban
Strategies to help with visioning and public
engagement. City officials posted get-in-
volved ads in newspapers and on billboards,
screaming such provocations as, "Our kids
go away and never come back!" It worked.
Neighborhood input sessions averaged 75

attendees. More than 1,ooo people twice
packed the historic Stambaugh Audito-
rium, first to learn about the overall vi-
sion-induding the idea of acknowledging
Youngstown's smaller size-and then to
see the plan in greater detail. By the time of
last November's mayoral election, the 2010
plan had become an agenda setter.
Williams, who as community development
director had become the face of the 2o0o
process, won convincingly.
Green Option
But now comes the hard part: figuring out
what it actually means to rightsize a city's
neighborhoods and infrastructure. Unlike
the industrialists who bolted from
Youngstown 30 years ago, the mayor can't
simply shutoff sewers or stop plowing snow
just because those services aren't economi-
cal. What he can do is target city invest-
ments where they will pay the greatest re-
turn to Youngstown's quality of life.
Williams hopes to entice residents to relo-
cate out of neighborhoods that are too far
gone to save. At the same time, he wants to
GOVERNING NOVEMBER 2006 51
focus on stabilizing transitional neighbor-
hoods and keeping healthy middle-class
neighborhoods from wilting. "What it
means is in many instances you have to start
saying no," Williams says. "That's not easy

as a public official, when it comes to people
with all sorts of ideas that are well intended
but not necessarily realistic."
One example is the city's program for
helping low-income people fix up their
homes. Until recently, that aid has been dis-
tributed on a first-come, first-served basis,
going right down a waiting list, regardless of
the condition of the neighborhood. Now, the
Community Development Agency skips
homes in far-gone areas. It's also looking at
dangling rehab dollars as a carrot for people
to move into more stable neighborhoods.
"Does it make sense to invest $40,000 or
$50,000 in a home that is on a street where
more than half of the other homes have to be
demolished?" Williams says. "Can we af-
ford to keep investing that money on a ran-
domly chosen basis and think that we're af-
fecting sustainable positive change?"
Similarly, Williams has put a morato-
rium on the construction of homes financed
with low-income housing tax credits. Over
the past decade, nonprofits have built new
homes in Oak Hill and other declining
neighborhoods, using federal tax credits
and other state and local subsidies. The new
vinyl-sided homes are respectable enough,
but Williams believes that they, too, repre-
sent a wasted investment. "We didn't have
a plan and they popped up in areas that just
didn't make sense," Williams says. "A
brand-new house constructed between two
houses that need to be demolished-we're

not doing anybody a favor. It's not that we
don't need decent quality housing for low-in-
come individuals, but where we house them
in the city has to be well thought out."
Many of Youngstown's shrinkage
strategies are aimed at its massive aban-
doned-property problem. There are 14,ooo
vacant lots in Youngstown, and i,ooo
derelict homes and commercial buildings
sitting on them. Williams has quadrupled
the funds available for demolition to $1.2
million-enough to take down about 350
homes this year. Another initiative, spear-
headed by Mahoning County Treasurer
John Reardon, is clearing a mountain of
back taxes owed on those lots so that
churches, businesses and residents can
take ownership of them. His goal is to put
52 NOVEMBER 2006 GOVERNING
Rust-Belt Shrinkage
Population of selected cities, 1970-2005 % CHANGE,
CITY 1970 1990 2005 1970 TO 2005
Charleston, WV 71,505 57,287 51,176 -28.43%
Dayton, OH 243,023 182,044 158,873 -34.63
Erie, PA 129,265 108,718 102,612 -20.62
Evansville, IN 138,764 126,272 115,918 -16.46
Flint, MI 193,317 140,761 118,551 -38.68

Gary, IN 175,415 116,646 98,715 -43.72
Kalamazoo, MI 85,555 80,277 72,700 -15.03
Saginaw, MI 91,849 69,512 58,361 -36.46
Scranton, PA 102,696 81,805 73,120 -28.80
Syracuse, NY 197,297 163,860 141,683 -28.19
Utica, NY 91,373 68,637 59,336 -35.06
Youngstown, OH 140,909 95,732 82,837 -41.21
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
5,000 lots into productive use within five
years. Most of the time, "productive use"
simply means allowing homeowners to
triple the size of their yards by buying the
empty lots next door.
If there is a guiding principle in all this,
it is that Youngstown can afford to be gen-
erous with its land. That notion implies
that stewardship is more important than
the plat lines on Youngstown's maps. Look-
ing at a row of empty lots tangled with veg-
etation, you don't have to squint too hard to
see wild prairie or woodlands-or even a
wetland. There's environmental value here,
but there's also economic value-develop-
ers are under obligation to create a new wet-
land when they destroy one somewhere
else. Youngstown has commissioned a sur-
vey of potential wetlands-in-waiting. De-

velopers may come to value Youngstown
land not because they want to build on it but
because they don't want to build on it.
As Anthony Kobak sees it, the greening
of Youngstown is also about enhancing
quality of life. The city doesn't want to keep
shrinking. It wants to make itself as attrac-
tive as it can be for the people who've stuck
it out. If it succeeds, perhaps one day
Youngstown can think about growing
again. "You could call it declining grace-
filly," Kobak says, "but I like to think of it
more as looking to be competitive and hav-
ing the potential for growth in the future."
Back in the Ford Taurus, Kobak ends his
tour of Youngstown at a conservatory that
lies above the tip of Mill Creek Park. The
leafy park, designed by associates of Fred-
erick Law Olmsted, is one of those 19 th-
century gems, with boathouses and stone
bridges, that even the wealthiest American
suburbs are incapable of replicating today.
If Youngstown is a size-6o suit on a size-4o
frame, Mill Creek Park is its shiniest ivory
button. There are others-a downtown with
early 19oos skyscrapers, two solid art mu-
seums, a symphony, the university. They
are vestiges, ironically, that a city of 82,ooo
could never possess unless it had once been
twice that size.
Kobak leads a reporter though a trim
and colorfil rose garden to a shaded stone

terrace. This is the spot, he says, where
newlyweds come on Saturdays to take wed-
ding pictures. It's obvious why. The picture-
frame view opens up on a lake below, sur-
rounded on all sides by a thick green canopy
of trees. "Here's the pitch," Kobak says.
"Look how easy it is to get out of the city and
into the country. We're right off the inter-
state. Our housing stock is incredibly af-
fordable. We're an hour from two interna-
tional airports. Perfect for telecommuters,
retirees, anyone trying to get out of the rat
race. It's just amazing what's here.
"We know we're not going to be a city of
170,ooo as we were in our heyday," he con-
tinues. "It will be a challenge. The city can
decline more unless we do something
about it. But I think we are trying to do that."
Christopher Swope can be reached at
[email protected]
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Smart Decline
SOURCE: Governing 20 no2 N 2006
PAGE(S): 46-8, 50-2
WN: 0630503087020
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article
and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this

BANNUCLEAR WEAPONSNOWThe International Campaign.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BANNUCLEAR WEAPONSNOWThe International Campaign.docx

Similar to BANNUCLEAR WEAPONSNOWThe International Campaign.docx (17)

More from rock73

More from rock73 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BANNUCLEAR WEAPONSNOWThe International Campaign.docx