In March 2005, Camilla Mattsson, Thomas Silfverberg and Martina Grosch of Sweden visited the PSR conference in Chicago, holding dialogues, running workshops and meeting with US students.

Below you will find some impressions and photos

Introduction

The Nuclear Weapons Inheritance Project, NWIP, was invited to give three workshops at the biannual student Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) conference which was held in Chicago on March 4-6, 2005. Our workshops included two sessions during the first day of the conference, each 1.5 hours, and one longer session in the afternoon after the conference had officially ended.

The first workshop we had was about the distribution of nuclear weapons in the world today and proliferation, and the second workshop was about the medical effects of nuclear weapons and what can be done on different levels in the work for global disarmament. During the longer session after the conference, we wanted the students to be creative and come up with ideas about what disarmament activities they could start with and to start planning on how to perform these activities.

The workshops were arranged by Camilla Mattsson, Martina Grosch and Thomas Silfverberg from Sweden, and we had a lot of help by students from Canada, India and the US. All of the workshops contained presentations, discussions and group work to make them as interactive and inspiring as possible.

Goals

Short term

-Raise awareness and educate medical students about nuclear weapons.

-Make medical students interested in nuclear weapons issues.

-Point out that nuclear disarmament is a very important question today and affects world politics.

Long term

Inspire students to work with nuclear weapon issues and help them start up this work.

1. Find a group that would like to work together with NWIP to continue work in the US.
2. Find American students who would like to work with NWIP internationally.

Workshop 1 – 1.5 h (5^th of March)

by Thomas Silfverberg

1. Presentation (Martina)
2. Wall to wall game (Martina)
3. Nuclear Weapon states (Thomas)
4. NPT (Martina)
5. Vertical proliferation (Camilla)

With input from:

• Conal Roche: Bunker busters, mini nukes, MDS
5. Horizontal proliferation (Martina)
6. Nuclear terrorism (Thomas)
7. Accidental use of nuclear weapons (Naranath Reddy)
8. Costs of nuclear weapons (Camilla)
9. Round off and evaluations

Participants: 17

The first workshop took place on Saturday morning. The time was an advantage because most participants were active and interested in learning things. I think the workshop lacked some structure in the beginning. I think the reason is a mixture of getting the crowd to listen and of us feeling nervous. In the wall to wall game only Liam tried to express a different opinion than the others. My short presentation on Nuclear weapon states actually quite obviously lacked structure.

This was my first presentation for this project and I tried to make it interactive, but it turned out more like everyone shouted out the 8 nuclear weapon states within 2 seconds. Therefore when I tried to take it country for country I lost track a couple of times.

However, from there the workshop turned out really well. I think we found a good balance between discussions within the group and our own presentations. I think all three of us found ourselves a bit more in the situation and relaxed much more. Both Camilla and Martina showed that they have a lot of knowledge and experience on these subjects. I was impressed. One of the American students, Conal Roche, made a well disposed presentation on the new types of nuclear weapons that the US is developing today. Naranath Reddy made a well organized presentation of the dangers of the accidental use of nuclear weapons. He incorporated contemporary problems (e.g. India – Pakistan) as well as a historical perspective.

We managed to initiate interesting discussions within the group a few times which I think was an accomplishment. We had planned the workshops quite tightly and as a result couldn’t allow these discussions to continue indefinitely. A couple of times we had to stop them and move on. I think it would be better if we had included some more time on “possible discussions” especially since we are trying to focus on interaction within the group. One comment was that the really interesting things are when you actually go deeply into a subject. Maybe we shouldn’t aim to do an all-encompassing presentation.

Because of the distribution of whiteboards we weren’t able to write things for everyone to see, which was unfortunate.

In conclusion this workshop was successful and a good way of drawing new participants into the following workshop.

Workshop 2 – 1.5 h (5^th of March)

by Thomas Silfverberg

1. Presentation (Camilla) – 5 min
2. Wall to wall game (Camilla) – 10 min
3. Introduction to IPPNW (Camilla) – 5 min
4. Medical effects (Thomas) – 20 min
5. Model of Change with work in small groups (Martina) – 45 min

With input from:

• Christine Newell: Peace through Health
• Liam Brunham: New Agenda Coalition
• Naranath Reddy: Indian student work
• Jay Augsburger: American student work + other organisations in the US working with disarmament issues
• Camilla: NWIP-presentation
5. Evaluations – 5 min

Participants: 16

This workshop focused more on the medical effects and why we as medical students should care about these subjects. The workshop was set for Saturday afternoon which meant that more people felt tired after having listened to speakers the whole day. During such circumstances it’s important to make the workshop as interactive and interesting as possible.

The wall to wall game generated a more interesting discussion than the one in the first workshop. People’s opinion differed more from one another. Then Camilla talked a bit about the IPPNW, just for the attendants to know why we were there. Then I held a presentation on the medical effects of nuclear weapons and testings. This presentation was the weak point of this workshop, primarily because it was not at all interactive and also that I sometimes wasn’t able to keep the pace up to make it more interesting. It’s hard to make it in another way, but it should have been shorter. 

Martina then started the Model of Change exercise. I think most people felt good about getting to do something on their own. This is also a part when experience helps a lot. I think Martina handled this exercise very well. She seemed to have a good appreciation about what the major points are as well as the need of moving on.

At the part where we talked about what is currently being done for disarmament, we had asked some other people to do short presentations. Christine Newell talked about Peace through Health, Liam Brunham presented the New Agenda Coalition, Naranath Reddy told us about what is being done among students in India and finally Jay Augsburger shared what the American students have done so far when it comes to disarmament. In my opinion this part was quite inspiring for the participants because you got a nice view of what is being done, at the same time that you could see that this is an international issue and concerns people from all over the world.

At the end of this workshop Camilla talked a little about what we are doing in the NWIP. This was well connected to giving the participants more ideas of what the possibilities are for student activities.

I think we didn’t really succeed in this workshop as we did in the first one. The major reason is that we didn’t manage to keep the participants interested. There were too much presenting facts from our side, and especially the medical effects. The Model of change was more successful I think, though we ended up with lack of time in the end. The conclusion is that I think we managed to present our purpose to the participants, and at least some of them found it motivating.

Workshop 3 – 3 h (6^th of March)

by Martina Grosch

1. Presentation, NWIP (Camilla and Martina)
2. Mayors for Peace (DVD-ROM)
3. Life-Link (Camilla)
4. Which activities on nuclear weapon disarmament to start up in the US (Martina)
1. Brainstorm on activities to do (in small groups)
2. Brainstorm on why people choose to get involved in activities – choose 2 of them as the most important ones.
3. Choose among the activities found before.
5. Project planning in smaller groups

E-mail list, Evaluations, Good bye

Participants: 19

We were happy to see that so many of the students stayed on to attend our Sunday workshop as it was outside the official program of the conference. We had advertised the workshop on the program on the internet before the conference, and during our workshops on Saturday and of course when talking to students between sessions and during free time.

Our thoughts during the planning of this workshop were that we would either focus it on getting projects in the US started or on the dialogue method we use during our delegations to the nuclear weapon states. Our preconceptions were that the students would choose to focus it on the dialogue method, being more interested in international work, but we were happy when they chose to focus it on getting projects/work in the US started, as that was one of our main goals in coming to the conference.

Camilla and I started the workshop by introducing ourselves and the workshop. Then we had a long talk about NWIP. Many of the students had been to our previous workshops but some were new. Camilla and I both found it important to tell the students about our recent experiences when meeting students in China and during our last visit in the US. Camilla and I had both been with NWIP in Beijing in China during the IPPNW World Conference in September 2004 and in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky in November 2004 meeting students.

We had a good presentation of Mayors for Peace thanks to a CD we got at the NPT Conference in Stockholm the weekend before from Regina Hagen (Thank you!). Then Camilla had an introduction to the Life-Link project.

The goal of the “working part” of the workshop was to find a few activities that the American students would find realistic to set up at their universities. I started it with work in small groups finding different realistic disarmament projects to work on in the US. Then we got them all up on the white board. Our next step was to brainstorm on why students get engaged in disarmament work. We wanted to find two reasons that most students could agree upon and we succeeded. The two reasons were: 1. Making a difference, 2. Having fun.

Then we turned our attention back to the activities we had written on the white board before and chose among them which ones would make the most students feel that they made a difference and at the same time were fun. We had to be selective as we wanted the outcome of the workshop to be that the activities we chose would really be possible to set up as the students went back to their home towns and universities. The projects we chose to make project planning on were:

1. Students go out to schools, colleges and universities to hold NWIP workshops.
2. Mayors for Peace: Students go to the mayor in their city and talk with him/her about the opportunity to declare his/her city to be nuclear weapons free.
3. Project: Target…: Students find out if there are nuclear weapons targeted on their city and mark a red cross on the target spot and inform people passing by about its meaning.

We had Jay Augsburger and Liam Brunham as leaders for the first one, Chris Brubaker for the second and Alex Rosen for the third one. Camilla and I walked around to the different groups and were happy to hear how concrete the plans actually were.

At the end of the workshops Camilla and I thought the outcome of the workshop had exceeded our expectations. We formed an email-list and hope that communication will continue over this list.

For the future we plan to support the activities that we hope will start up at the different universities. We also would like to try and set up a longer tour travelling around to different universities in the US for a somewhat longer time, but a tour like that needs more planning.

Conclusion

by Camilla Mattsson

Since the NWIP-delegation to Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana in November 2004, we have tried to find a good way to follow up on the work we did and get some NWIP-activities started in the US. Therefore, we were very happy when Chris Brubaker, one of the student PSR representatives, offered NWIP to arrange workshops during the biannual SPSR conference. We could thereby get the opportunity to meet some of the students we met in November again, and we would also get in contact with a lot of new students.

One of the biggest advantages was that we would meet students from all over the USA and thereby get the chance to spread NWIP to students all over the country. Our hopes before the conference were big; and now afterwards, I am happy to say that I think that we got what we wanted out of the conference.

The conference was arranged by Chris Brubaker and Lisa Jacobson, the two student representatives, and they did a really good job. About one hundred students from all over the USA gathered in Chicago for the conference, to get inspired by the many speakers, the interesting workshops and, maybe most of all, by meeting so many other students who were involved in the same kind of questions as themselves.

One thing that could be mentioned, though, was that all the speakers were middle aged men - maybe not the very best representatives if the purpose is to involve a new generation of activists. A few younger/female speakers would have been interesting to listen to as well. But this is just a small remark - as a whole, the conference was great!

PSR has three main areas of interest; hand guns, environment and nuclear disarmament. We had heard that almost none of the students were active in disarmament work, so one of the goals NWIP had before going to the conference was to inspire students to start some disarmament activities. We invited them to our three workshops by sending out e-mails and having some information about our workshops in the official conference program. Now, after the conference, we regret that we didn't ask for the opportunity to present ourselves and our workshops for all the students when the auditorium was gathered. Maybe we could have convinced some more students to attend our workshops that way? It's always easy to think of such things afterwards. And, as one of the American students commented, we couldn't have fitted more people in to our workshops anyway! We had about 15-20 participants for each workshop, and that was a good number since it gave everybody the opportunity to take an active part in the discussions.

One thing that we’re very happy about is that NWIP managed to have truly international workshops during the conference. Naranath Reddy, an Indian student who's been involved in NWIP for some years now, is currently doing his masters in the US, and he agreed to come to Chicago and help us with the workshops. Christine Newell and Liam Brunham from Canada, who we first met during the world congress in China 2004, also took an active part in helping us presenting information and giving us the Canadian view on certain issues. We were also happy to get some help from Alex Rosen, one of the International students representatives, with giving us the view of students from all around the world. Above all this, Jay Augsburger and Conal Roche, who we met in Cincinnati in November, also gave us a lot of support.

With this conference, NWIP has taken a big step towards establishing student disarmament activities in USA. We are very happy with this, and our hope is that we will keep in contact with all the wonderful students we met in Chicago, and that we can give them the support and inspiration they will need to get some activities started. In the future, we also hope that North American students will have the opportunity to come with us when NWIP is going on delegations to nuclear weapon states all around the world.

We'd like to thank PSR – and especially Chris and Lisa for arranging this great conference; Liam, Christine, Jay, Connell and Naranath for their great presentations and all the American students who attended our workshops and made them so interesting and productive! We'd also like to thank the Swedish and Canadian affiliates for their support, which made it possible for us to attend the conference.

Comments from other participants

Liam Brunham, University of British Columbia, Vancouver

I was fortunate to get to be a part of the NWIP workshops being held at the Student PSR conference in Chicago this March. Although I had participated in some of the NWIP sessions at the IPPNW World Congress in Beijing, this was the first time that I played more of an active role in the workshops.
 

Working with the other students on the workshop team was a very inspiring experience, and I was extremely impressed by the level of thoughtfulness and knowledge that each of these students brought with them. Preparing for the workshop was a great learning experience and allowed me an opportunity and to research some aspects of nuclear weapons policy that I previously knew very little about.

The workshops themselves were energizing, informing, and fun. I continue to be amazed at the effectiveness of these relatively simple methods to generate student participation and interaction. What strikes me most upon reflecting on these workshops is the amazing spirit and level of energy that permeates them. This atmosphere I think must come from their student-initiated nature and the entirely non-didactic way in which they are run. These workshops succeed where so many other types of workshops fail – in genuinely evoking thought, participation, and hopefully, action on the part of the participants.  I think our challenge now will be to maintain contact with the students we met in Chicago and to support them and plan with them future activities.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to have been involved in these sessions and look forward to continuing to work with this program.

Naranath Reddy, Wichita State University

It’s been a while since I returned from the Chicago Conference. I had been there to motivate the fellow students and to help the NWIP delegation from Sweden but it so happened that I returned back much motivated and happy then I could imagine. I have in addition met nice people from all over the world have learnt some facts regarding the medical students in US and other countries. I have seen that these people have the same problems and difficulties that the students from the countries like India face in terms of support and motivation. They are no different from any of the Indian students. 

I had been to Chicago along with Camilla, Martina and Thomas and Liam, Christine from Canada. This is the first delegation that I have been to outside India. We had met and prepared for the delegation and there was always fun and seriousness in our preparation. We had a meeting with the students on Saturday morning when we presented the basic facts regarding the nuclear weapons and Thomas was very impressive in delivering the facts about nuclear weapons. The students were willing to work with the team and they joined us later for the various other parts of the dialogue training session. I was in fact impressed by the response we had got from the US students and the knowledge they had regarding their nuclear arsenal. I had seen a considerable number who had come to the conference just to attend the NWIP session. Most of them had had contacts with the previous delegation to US. 

The following day we were there again. This time we were there to train them regarding the various strategies and the techniques involved in delegations. I found that the students were highly motivated and I am sure that they shall be working with the NWIP team in the future with the same enthusiasm that they have shown during the workshops. I know how hard the NWIP delegation has worked for days before the delegation and also how hard it was to prepare for these delegations. I feel that the hard work has paid and that this will mean that we will have new blood and thoughts in the team.

It is with a certain sense of heart felt gratitude that I thank Camilla and Martina for all the support and for chairing the delegation fantastically, Chris and Lisa for all the support that he has rendered in organising the delegation, Thomas for the nice and impressive presentations. Liam and Christine for the support and the internationality they had brought to the delegation, thus proving it truly that the NWIP is truly an international organisation of the students.

Appendix

Results from the workshops

During the workshop on Sunday we had some great brainstorming sessions and at least I was very pleased with the ideas we came up with and discussed in small groups. The main ideas were:

1. Students go out to schools, colleges and universities to hold NWIP workshops.
2. Mayors for Peace: Students go to the mayor in their city and talk with him/her about the opportunity to declare his/her city to be nuclear weapon free.
3. Project: Target…: Students find out if there are nuclear weapons targeted on their city – and mark a red cross on the target spot and inform people passing by about it’s meaning.

Target Red

This is an idea for an awareness raising activity on the streets of any given city. Basically what you would do is to write a big red “X” or something similar on a public place where a nuclear warhead is aimed. By this “X” some doctors in white coats will give information on disarmament issues. This is what was concluded would be needed.

1. Find information of where the missiles are aimed
2. Get a permit
3. Contact media
4. Be prepared (know the subject)
5. Bring information
1. General info on disarmament and NW
2. Pamphlet
3. Map of impact for your city
4. Medical effects with pictures
5. Costs of NW with comparisons
6. Bring red tape or red chalk and police line
7. Wear white coat
8. Take photos for website (important!)

Important! There’s a danger that people will think this is an argument for using scare tactics (proliferation) and missile defense.

The website could be used as a place where you could download the information and see where the project has been before.

General ideas for taking action

• Local mayor meeting/ join Mayors for Peace
• City Council meeting (suburban towns as well)
• Presentations at med-schools and high schools
• Article for student newspaper
• Editorial for local paper
• Invite IPPNW/NWIP (for help or delegation)
• Regional PSR-meetings
• Connect with other groups (especially peace groups)
• Start WMD inspection teams
• Concentration on funding issues
• Air America Radio
• NPR – concerns preaching to choir
• Letter campaign
• Talk to and lend books to people you know
• Target Red
• Purchase advertising space (billboards, sides of buses, metro signs)
• Circulating petitions and meeting with local representatives
• Organize community discussions/debates
• Try to have physical contact with aides and reps
• Dialogue with students (after class, during lunch)
• Library events (kids/puppets)
• MP Day
• Lobbying
• Marching, Skating (with white coats), Demonstrating
• Greenpeace, PHR, nuclear power plants
• Involve law students and teachers
• Movies – nuclear/documentaries

Mayors for peace

Reasons for a mayor to sign up:

·         A way to show citizens they care

·         Civic pride

Things to consider:

·         Education

·         History

·         Approach all mayors – small towns

·         City council

·         Use expertise

·         Be professional

·         Address consequences

·         2 meetings

·         Build coalition

·         Network locally

·         Focus efforts

·         Letter-writing (kids, mothers, teachers)

·         Be prepared