• Listen to this segment

The International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday announced that North Korea intended to restart its production of nuclear weapons grade materials. In June, North Korea publicly blew up one of its cooling towers at the Yongbyon Nuclear complex as an act of good faith after reaching an agreement last year within the framework of the so-called six party talks. Now, in an apparent about-turn, IAEA inspectors have been barred from the nuclear complex and all its seals and surveillance cameras removed. Meanwhile, the country occupying another arm of President Bush’s “Axis of Evil,” Iran, said it will limit future assistance with the IAEA over its probe into alleged nuclear weapons studies. The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of “hostile” nations and terrorist organizations has fueled much of the impetus on US foreign policy in the last 8 years. Parallels with the Cold War threat of nuclear annihilation are obvious. We turn next to a man who was intimately involved in the struggle against nuclear proliferation during the Cold War. Dr. Bernard Lown is an internationally recognized cardiologist who invented the direct-current cardiac defibrillator. He is a professor emeritus in cardiology at Harvard University. Together with a high-level Russian cardiologist, Dr. Eugene Chazov, he co-founded the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Dr. Lown is also the founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and he has spent the last three years of his life writing the book, “Prescription for Survival: A Doctor’s Journey to End Nuclear Madness.” The book has a foreword by Howard Zinn.

GUEST: Dr. Bernard Lown, author of “Prescription for Survival: A Doctor’s Journey to End Nuclear Madness”. For more information, visit www.bernardlown.org.

Rough Transcript

Sonali Kolhatkar: I want to start with taking a look at current events before we examine a little bit of the origins of the organization that won the Nobel Prize. In the past several years, we have seen the threat of nuclear weapons being invoked, those falling into the hands of so-called terrorists and terrorist nations. How does the rhetoric that you have heard around this compare to U.S. rhetoric during the Cold War?

Dr. Bernard Lown: Well, it is several decibels lower. At that time, the public was fixated with the possibility of extinction; with an evil, overpowering, all powerful giant of an enemy. The threat was real, but the power of the enemy was way inflated and exaggerated. So, the Russians were none people and they had no principles. They were atheist and communist. They were the evil empire. Right now, this threat is diffused. It’s unlikely that the Soviets and Americans will, in the next foreseeable years, be ready to launch their enormous arsenals against one another. So the world is not about to become extinguished. That’s a profound difference. Because it gives us time to begin to eliminate, abolish these genocidal instruments.

Sonali Kolhatkar: But how has the rhetoric around nuclear threats been used to then justify increasing the U.S.’s own current nuclear arsenal. How does that compare?

Dr. Bernard Lown: Well, it’s been continued and unrelenting. I mean, look, we launched ourselves into Iraq because of the mushroom cloud that Condoleezza Rice said was about to burst against the United States. It is there with confronting Iran and ready to launch another war. It is there with the huge military budget. 100 billion or so which go for the nuclear one. So it’s not a problem that has disappeared. It is there. And it’s real. And American people are being diverted from the reality. I maintain that, without the Cold War, we would not and could not have had the war in Iraq and probably avoided the scourge of terrorism. And, there is another reality; the fact that the best period for conservative establishment, neocons, was the Cold War. And there are all those out to revive it. Look what’s happening now between the U.S. and Russia.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And in fact how real is the possibility of a revival today of the Cold War? And in fact how close is the Cold War? A lot of people have talked about the possibility and others have dismissed it.

Dr. Bernard Lown: We are doing everything to revive it. I mean, if you, you know what made us, the international physicians’ movement, effective, was that we were able to place ourselves in the position of our so-called enemy. We were able to mirror who we were and our differences. If you do that right now, assuming the Warsaw Pact was still on and the Warsaw Pact made an alliance and got Canada into the Warsaw Pact, and got Mexico into the Warsaw Pact, and then made a deal with Puerto Rico to place some star war missiles there and radar, would Americans go bonkers? Would we be on the edge of another nuclear confrontation, a very serious one? But that’s exactly what we did. Against all the promises that Clinton made to Yeltsin, we pushed NATO into the very perimeter of Russia’s boundaries. In Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania; and now we are placing bases in Poland and Czech, intended to fight Iran. Prevent Iranian missiles to land in Europe, which is a lunatic concept. It is totally psychotic. The Iranians have no intent, no capacity, and they would have to be mad to launch missiles against Europe, which the United States is about to protect them. You might as well talk of Martians landing.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Let’s talk about the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. You, at the time when you founded this organization, were already a very well-established, internationally recognized doctor, and were in the prime of your career. Why did you start this organization and why were doctors like yourself actually effective?

Dr. Bernard Lown: I started it for two reasons. Firstly, the fact that the nuclear issue, I became aware of in the late 1950’s. And it was a shock to me that here I am, raising a young family, and I am creating a world that may not survive. At the time, I was involved with the issue of sudden cardiac death; the medical issue. Wherein an American dies every ninety seconds. And my research led me to think that this type of fatality was due to an electrical accident that could be reversed. Therein the development of the defibrillator. But when I learned about nuclear, I realized that it’s nuclear sudden death that confronts human kind, not cardiac sudden death. So I began to switch my attention to the nuclear issue. But there was a second narrative that the book describes, and that is my relation with the Russians, because in my research about sudden cardiac death, I couldn’t get any support from the government, from NIH. The medical profession was disinterested because it thought it was an enormous heart attack that was not survivable. So my reasoning was very convoluted, if [inaudible]. It went something like this: the Russians launched Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin in space, and Americans were determined not to let the Russians have another first. So, if I could persuade a Russian cardiologist to get involved with sudden death, which coffers would be opened for research? You know, it reminds me of what George Orwell once said “some ideas are so silly or stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them.” I was that intellectual. But I didn’t know a Russian; I didn’t know a Russian cardiologist. And then, as the book relates, one time in 1966 in India, in New Delhi, at a hotel, standing near an elevator, I saw a very handsomely, very cleverly attired young fellow, he walked towards me and as I looked down at the floor, I saw his grungy, scruffy shoes, and I say “he must be a Russian” and I say “Are you a Russian?” he says “dah, dah, I’m a Russian.” So I immediately pounced at him and began to assault him with the issue of sudden cardiac death, of which he knew little. And that convoluted way and interesting way got me connected with Chazov. His name was Yevgeny Chazov. He was not just a physician; he was the leading cardiologist in the Soviet Union. More than that, he was the doctor for many members of the Politburo, the cadre governing the Soviet Union, including Leonid Brezhnev. Indeed I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams that day in New Delhi, because we established a relationship, we did joined research and we became close friends.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And he was as interested in the issue of nuclear annihilation and how to stop it as you were?

Dr. Bernard Lown: No. No. It took enormous persuading, arm-twisting, anger, provocative discussion and the book deals with that, but he nearly threw me out, but then changed his mind. And he changed his mind in an interesting way. We had an argument in Moscow, because I urged him if he was a physician, you know, true to his calling, he must be concerned about the survival [inaudible]. And he says “Nonsense, this is a political issue beyond you or me and don’t think yourself as some [inaudible] flailing at windmills, saving human kind. And I’m involved right now in building an institute and doing this, I don’t want to ruin my career.” And I said “Yevgeny, you are just an opportunist, not a physician” and with that he stalked out and I thought I’ll never see him again. And my wife, who was a very quiet, sensible woman, went ballistic against me “How do you insult a friend, why did you have such a temper tantrum?” Well, the next morning, he called me and said let’s get together and talk seriously. And we got together and we talked about founding IPPNW. Some years later, at an alcoholic party, we were celebrating the Nobel Prize announcement in Geneva. The mood was good, the vapors level was high, and I said “Yevgeny, you remember that night that next morning when you called me where I thought I’d never see you again?” He said “Yes, I came home and my daughter, who is a young physician, says “Dad, you look so tired. You are killing yourself. You are working too hard.” He says “I just saw an American who told me I wasn’t working hard enough. So she asked “What did the American say?” And he relayed it to her. And she thought a long while and then she said “You know, I think the American is right. And I’m not telling you that because of me, because of you, but because of my 6-month old son, your grandson.” And that shook him up badly and he decided to collaborate.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, Dr. Lown, what would you say were the successes of your organization? What is the legacy that your organization with Dr. Yevgeny Chazov of the USSR, what legacy did it leave?

Dr. Bernard Lown: Well, the most important one, the most really important one and relevant to today when people feel sort of neutered, irrelevant, is the concept that mobilized people shape history. We learned that ruling establishments are unmoved by high-sounding principles, by historic necessities, by moral imperatives. Politicians are generally sluggishly responsive to the prompting of danger. Motion and change are compelled by aroused public opinion. When denied it’s legitimate rights, as is happening in America now, as you see the bailout of Wall Street while we can’t find any money for children in this country. Now, the IPPNW confirms this, and I’ll give you one example of many. When we organized, we were unable to get any word from the White House. They were totally hostile to us. In 1983, at the third congress, we have an annual World Congress in Amsterdam. Opening up the plenary session, I was called out by the American Ambassador to Holland. He says “Dr. Lown, here is a letter. Would you please read it?” The letter was from President Reagan. In part his message was nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and then he added soothing words to those who protest against nuclear war I can only say I am with you. That was President Reagan. Now the question is why did he do that? At that time, a million Americans in New York marched the largest demonstrations against nuclear weapons in New York City. At that time, there were 5,700 peace groups in America. At that point, the Congress passed a resolution supporting the freeze. At that point people were getting mobilized and insisting to their politicians “You gotta stop that.” And Reagan was running for reelection and he wanted that to be the sounding board that he is the peacemaking president. Look what a transformation; the one president who heated up the Cold War more than anyone else. Which shows the power of the public, the power of people. Another lesson that is very relevant and broad is in order to organize effectively; you have to bring in the moral dimension. You have to engender outrage against injustice. It is a vital force for making emotions churn and keeping people active rather than burning out. I think those, the book also taught me that the Cold War wasn’t a spontaneous combustion. It was stoked and propelled by the Pentagon, by American militarism, who profited enormously from the Cold War by keeping a docile population; quiescent, cowed and terrorized. But the most important lesson that I learned was while writing the book. It took me three years, and the lesson which I didn’t understand until I began to write it, it’s like a novelist discovering the psychology of the character that was resting in his brain. The titanic struggle between super powers was not about ideology. A fear of communism was largely a facade. It was a struggle for the resources of the developing world; and that I’ve heard nobody say or say it adequately.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, today, are we in a similar position then, or is it even maybe clearer today, given the U.S.’s presence in Iraq, one of the most oil-rich countries?

Dr. Bernard Lown: It is clearer, because so specious and stupid are the pretentions. We are coming to bring democracy in Iraq? We, who supported every dictator that has lived in the 20th century? I mean, we are out to liberate Iraq? Why haven’t we liberated Guatemala? Why haven’t we liberated our neighbors? It’s, to me, unbelievable.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Finally, Dr. Lown, what advice would you give the generation of young activists today? I mean, aside from what you already imparted, particularly as they face an electoral system that seems to sort of choke off any or at least seems to distract a lot of folks from the real work?

Dr. Bernard Lown: I would be self-serving and say read my book. I would insist on that. Because the book is full of lessons for young people especially. I would also remind them once again of George Orwell, who says “Who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past.” The ruling establishment controls the past by having made American people amnesic about their own history. The book is a powerful antidote to amnesia. We have got to learn our past and we have got to rethink Vietnam, Iraq, Hiroshima, Nagasaki; those lessons which form one mighty continuum. In order to organize, in order to launch people, you have to get young people energized and you get them energized by making them aware of our history. And it is very appropriate that Howard Zinn wrote the foreword, because he is the apostle of A People’s History of the United States.

Special Thanks to Claudia Greyeyes for transcribing this interview