All posts by CPNN Coordinator

About CPNN Coordinator

Dr David Adams is the coordinator of the Culture of Peace News Network. He retired in 2001 from UNESCO where he was the Director of the Unit for the International Year for the Culture of Peace, proclaimed for the Year 2000 by the United Nations General Assembly.

Beyond borders: Why new ‘high seas’ treaty is critical for the world

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from the United Nations

The UN’s 193 Member States adopted a landmark legally binding marine biodiversity agreement on Monday (June 19) following nearly two decades of fierce negotiations over forging a common wave of conservation and sustainability in the high seas beyond national boundaries – covering two thirds of the planet’s oceans. Here are five key points on why it is important for the world..


© Nuno Vasco Rodrigues/UN World Oceans Day 2023 A team of scientific divers assess the marine biodiversity on the top of a seamount in Porto Santo, Madeira, Portugal.

1. Fresh protection beyond borders

While countries are responsible for the conservation and sustainable use of waterways under their national jurisdiction, the high seas now have added protection from such destructive trends as pollution and unsustainable fishing activities.

Adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), the “high seas” treaty aims at taking stewardship of the ocean on behalf of present and future generations, in line with the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The new agreement contains 75 articles that aim at protecting, caring for, and ensuring the responsible use of the marine environment, maintaining the integrity of ocean ecosystems, and conserving the inherent value of marine biological diversity.

“The ocean is the lifeblood of our planet, and today, you have pumped new life and hope to give the ocean a fighting chance,” the UN Secretary-General António Guterres told delegates on Monday.

2. Cleaner oceans

Toxic chemicals and millions of tons of plastic waste are flooding into coastal ecosystems, killing or injuring fish, sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, and making their way into the food chain and ultimately being consumed by humans.

More than 17 million metric tons of plastic entered the world’s ocean in 2021, making up 85 per cent of marine litter, and projections are expected to double or triple each year by 2040, according to the latest Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) report.

According to UN estimates, by 2050, there could be more plastic in the sea than fish unless action is taken.

(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

If we can connect up the planet through Internet, can’t we agree to preserve the planet?

(Article continued from the left column)

The treaty aims at strengthening resilience and contains provisions based on the polluter-pays principle as well as mechanisms for disputes.

Under the treaty’s provisions, parties must assess potential environmental impacts of any planned activities beyond their jurisdictions.

3. Sustainably managing fish stocks

More than one third of global fish stocks are over-exploited, according to the UN.

The treaty underlines the importance of capacity building and the transfer of marine technology, including the development and strengthening of institutional capacity and national regulatory frameworks or mechanisms.

This includes increasing collaboration among regional seas organizations and regional fisheries management organizations.

4. Lowering temperatures

Global heating is pushing ocean temperatures to new heights, fueling more frequent and intense storms, rising sea levels, and the salinization of coastal lands and aquifers.

Addressing these urgent concerns, the treaty offers guidance, including through an integrated approach to ocean management that builds ecosystem resilience to tackle the adverse effects of climate change and ocean acidification, and maintains and restores ecosystem integrity, including carbon cycling services.

Treaty provisions also recognize the rights and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, the freedom of scientific research, and need for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

5. Vital for realizing 2030 Agenda

The new agreement “is critical to addressing the threats facing the ocean, and to the success of ocean-related goals and targets, including the 2030 Agenda, the UN chief said on Monday.

Some of the goals and targets include Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14, which aims at, among other things, preventing and significantly reducing marine pollution of all kinds by 2025, and ending overfishing through science-based management plans in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible.

The new agreement will enable the establishment of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, to conserve and sustainably manage vital habitats and species in the high seas and the international seabed area.

The treaty also considers the special circumstances facing small-island and landlocked developing nations.

“We have a new tool,” UN General Assembly President Csaba Kőrösi told the Intergovernmental Conference delegates on Monday. “This landmark achievement bears witness to your collective commitment to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Together, you laid the foundation for a better stewardship of our seas, ensuring their survival for generations to come.”

Learn more about how the UN is working to protect the world’s oceans here.

global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, United Nations,

Vienna’s International Summit for Peace in Ukraine Issues a Global Call for Action

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Medea Benjamin published by Code Pink

During the  weekend of June 10-11 in Vienna, Austria, over 300 people representing peace organizations from 32 countries came together for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine to demand an end to the fighting. In a formal conference declaration, participants declared, “We are a broad and politically diverse coalition that represents peace movements and civil society. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and there is no military solution to the current crisis.” (See CPNN June 12 for full text.)

To amplify their call for a ceasefire, Summit participants committed themselves to organizing Global Weeks of Action–protests, street vigils and political lobbying–during the days of September 30-October 8.

Summit organizers chose Austria as the location of the peace conference because  Austria is one of only a few neutral non-NATO states left in Europe. Ireland, Switzerland and Malta are a mere handful of neutral European states, now that previously neutral states Finland has joined NATO and Sweden is next in line. Austria’s capital, Vienna, is known as “UN City,” and is also home to the Secretariat of the OSCE (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which monitored the ceasefire in the Donbas from the signing of the Minsk II agreement in 2015 until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 

Surprisingly, neutral Austria turned out to be quite hostile to the Peace Summit. The union federation caved in to pressure from the Ukrainian Ambassador to Austria and other detractors, who smeared the events as a fifth column for the Russian invaders. The ambassador had objected to some of the speakers, including world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs and European Union Parliament member Clare Daly. (See CPNN June 9 for details.)

Even the press club, where the final press conference was scheduled, canceled at the last minute. The Austrian liberal/left newspaper Der Standard piled on, panning the conference both beforehand, during and afterwards, alleging that the speakers were too pro-Russian. Undaunted, local organizers quickly found other locations.The conference took place in a lovely concert center, and the press conference in a local cafe. 

The most moving panel of the conference was the one with representatives from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, who risked their lives to participate in the Summit. Yurii Sheliazhenko, secretary treasurer of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, is unable to leave the country and therefore spoke to attendees from Kyiv via Zoom. 

“Like many Ukrainians, I am a victim of aggression of Russian army, which bombs my city, and a victim of human rights violations by the Ukrainian army, which tries to drag me to the meat grinder, denying my right to refuse to kill, to leave the country for my studies in University of Münster … Think about it: all men from 18 to 60 are prohibited from leaving the country, they are hunted on the streets and forcibly abducted to the army’s serfdom.” 

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

Sheliazhenko told the Summit that the Armed Forces of Ukraine had tried to deny conscientious objector status to Ukrainian war resisters, but relented when international pressure demanded that the Ukrainian military recognize rights secured under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Several groups at the Summit pledged to provide support for conscientious objectors from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, and also took up a collection for Ukrainian families lacking access to clean water following the recent destruction of the Kakhovka dam. 

Highlights of the Summit also included remarks by representatives from the Global South, who came from China, Cameroon, Ghana, Mexico and Bolivia. Bolivia’s Vice President  David Choquehuanca inspired the crowd as he spoke of the need to heed the wisdom of indigenous cultures and their mediation practices. 

Many speakers said the real impetus to end this war will come from the Global South, where politicians can see the widespread hunger and inflation that this conflict is causing, and are taking leading roles in offering their services as mediators.

Almost all of Europe was represented, including dozens from Italy, the country  mobilizing the continent’s largest peace demonstrations, with over 100,000 protesters. Unlike in the United States, where the demonstrations have been small, Italian organizers have successfully built coalitions that include trade unions and the religious community, as well as traditional peace groups. Their advice to others was to narrow and simplify their demands in order to broaden their appeal and build a mass anti-war movement.

The eight-person U.S. delegation included representatives from CODEPINK, Peace in Ukraine, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Veterans for Peace. U.S. retired colonel and diplomat Ann Wright was a featured speaker, along with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who joined remotely.

Despite the uniform bottom line of the participants, which was a call for peace talks, there were plenty of disagreements, especially in the workshops. Some people believed that we should continue to send weapons while pushing for talks; others called for an immediate end to weapons transfers. Some insisted on calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops, while others believed that should be the result of negotiations, not a pre-condition. Some put more blame on the role of NATO expansion and the interference of the U.S. in Ukraine’s internal affairs, while others said the blame belongs exclusively at the doorstep of the Russian invaders. 

Some of these differences were reflected in discussions surrounding the final declaration, where there was plenty of back and forth about what should and should not be mentioned. There were strong calls to condemn NATO provocations and the role of the U.S./UK in sabotaging early attempts at mediation. These sentiments, along with others condemning the West, were left out of the final document, which some criticized as too bland. References to NATO provocations that led to the Russian invasion were deleted and replaced with the following language:

“The institutions established to ensure peace and security in Europe fell short, and the failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

But the most important segment of the final document and the gathering itself was the call for further actions.

“This weekend should be seen as just the start,” said organizer Reiner Braun. “We need more days of action, more gatherings, more outreach to students and environmentalists, more educational events. But this was a great beginning of global coordination.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Putin tells Africans: Russia doesn’t reject negotiations with Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by EFE published in Prensa Latina

Russia remains open to negotiations on a resolution to the conflict that began with its invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin said Saturday (June 17) in a meeting with officials of seven African nations on a peace mission.

“My dear friends, not we, but the leadership of Ukraine, announced that it would not conduct any negotiations. Moreover the president of Ukraine signed a decree prohibiting these negotiations,” the Russian head of state said in St. Petersburg

“We are ready to consider any of your proposals without preconditions,” Putin told Presidents Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, Azali Assoumani of the Comoros, Macky Sall of Senegal, and Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia.

The delegation, which also includes Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly and envoys representing the presidents of the Republic of the Congo and Uganda, met Friday in Kyiv with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

The purpose of what Ramaphosa described as a “historic” mission was to present to the Ukrainian and Russian governments a 10-point peace plan drawn up by African countries.

“We welcome the balanced approach of African friends to the Ukraine crisis,” Putin told the visitors. “We’re open to constructive dialogue with all those who want peace based on the principles of respect for each other’s interests, as well as justice.”

“This war has to have an end. It must be settled through negotiations and through diplomatic means,” Ramaphosa said during the meeting at Konstantinovsky Palace.

“This war is having a negative impact on the African continent and indeed, on many other countries around the world,” the South African said.

Putin took the opportunity to show the delegation what he said was a draft peace agreement from March 2022.

“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that with (Turkish) President (Recep Tayyip) Erdogan’s assistance, as you know, a string of talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Turkey so as to work out both the confidence-building measures you mentioned, and to draw up the text of the agreement,” Putin said.

“We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initialed by the head of the Kyiv negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” the Russian president, holding up a piece of paper.

“It was called treaty of permanent neutrality and security guarantees of Ukraine,” Putin said, adding that the document included 18 articles pertaining to Ukraine’s security.

“Well, after we – as promised – withdrew troops from Kyiv, Kyiv authorities … threw it all away,” the Russian president said.

Africa, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe,

Daniel Ellsberg Has Passed Away. He Left Us a Message.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article by Norman Solomon in Common Dreams (republished according to Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

When  Daniel Ellsberg died on Friday, (June 16) the world lost a transcendent whistleblower with a powerful ethos of compassion and resolve.


Daniel Ellsberg giving the peace sign in front of the White House during a 2011 demonstration calling for the end of the war in Afghanistan.
(Photo credit should read Karen Bleier/AFP via Getty Images)

Ellsberg’s renown for openly challenging the mentalities of militarism began on June 23, 1971, when he appeared on CBS Evening News ten days after news broke about the Pentagon Papers that he’d provided to journalists. Ellsberg pointedly said that in the 7,000 pages of top-secret documents, “I don’t think there is a line in them that contains an estimate of the likely impact of our policy on the overall casualties among Vietnamese or the refugees to be caused, the effects of defoliation in an ecological sense. There’s neither an estimate nor a calculation of past effects, ever.”

And he added: “The documents simply reflect the internal concerns of our officials. That says nothing more nor less than that our officials never did concern themselves with the effect of our policies on the Vietnamese.”

Ellsberg told  anchor Walter Cronkite: “I think we cannot let the officials of the Executive Branch determine for us what it is that the public needs to know about how well and how they are discharging their functions.”

The functions of overseeing the war on Vietnam had become repugnant to Ellsberg as an insider. Many other government officials and top-level consultants with security clearances also had access to documents that showed how mendacious four administrations had been as the U.S. role in Vietnam expanded and then escalated into wholesale slaughter.

Unlike the others, he finally broke free and provided the Pentagon Papers to news media. As he said in the CBS interview, “The fact is that secrets can be held by men in the government whose careers have been spent learning how to keep their mouths shut. I was one of those.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

The courage of Mordecai Vanunu and other whistle-blowers, How can we emulate it in our lives?

How can we carry forward the work of the great peace and justice activists who went before us?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Ellsberg’s mouth, and heart, never stayed shut again. For the 52 full years that followed his release of the Pentagon Papers, he devoted himself to speaking, writing, and protesting. When the war on Vietnam finally ended, Ellsberg mainly returned to his earlier preoccupation—how to help prevent nuclear war.

This spring, during the three months after diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, Ellsberg made the most of every day, spending time with loved ones and speaking out about the all-too-real dangers of nuclear annihilation. He left behind two brilliant, monumental books published in this century—“Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers” (2002) and “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner” (2017). They illuminate in sharp ghastly light the patterns of official lies and secrecy about military matters, and the ultimate foreseeable result—nuclear holocaust.

Ellsberg was deeply determined to do all he could to help prevent omnicide. As he said in an interview  when “The Doomsday Machine” came out, scientific research has concluded that nuclear war “would loft into the stratosphere many millions of tons of soot and black smoke from the burning cities. It wouldn’t be rained out in the stratosphere. It would go around the globe very quickly and reduce sunlight by as much as 70 percent, causing temperatures like that of the Little Ice Age, killing harvests worldwide and starving to death nearly everyone on earth. It probably wouldn’t cause extinction. We’re so adaptable. Maybe 1 percent of our current population of 7.4 billion could survive, but 98 or 99 percent would not.”

During the profuse interviews that he engaged in during the last few months, what clearly preoccupied Ellsberg was not his own fate but the fate of the Earth’s inhabitants.

He was acutely aware that while admiration for brave whistleblowers might sometimes be widespread, actual emulation is scarce. Ellsberg often heard that he was inspiring, but he was always far more interested in what people would be inspired to actually do—in a world of war and on the precipice of inconceivable nuclear catastrophe.

During the last decades of his life, standard assumptions and efforts  by mainstream media and the political establishment aimed to consign Ellsberg to the era of the Vietnam War. But in real-time, Dan Ellsberg continually inspired so many of us to be more than merely inspired. We loved him not only for what he had done but also for what he kept doing, for who he was, luminously, ongoing. The power of his vibrant example spurred us to become better than we were.

In a recent series of short illustrated podcasts  created by filmmaker Judith Ehrlich—who co-directed the documentary  “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers”—Ellsberg speaks about the growing dangers of global apocalypse, saying that nuclear war planners “have written plans to kill billions of people,” preparations that amount to “a conspiracy to commit omnicide, near omnicide, the death of everyone.” And he adds: “Can humanity survive the nuclear era? We don’t know. I choose to act as if we have a chance.”

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, North America

United Nations: Values of Compassion, Respect, Human Fraternity ‘Best Antidote to Poison of Discord, Division’, Secretary-General Tells Security Council

. TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY .

An article from the United Nations

The declaration “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” — co-authored by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayeb — is a model for compassion and human solidarity, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council today, as speakers warned against a groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance, anti-Muslim hatred, virulent antisemitism and attacks on minority Christian communities.


Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb sign the Document on Human Fraternity

António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that hatred of the other is a common denominator to the escalation of conflict and a conduit for atrocity crimes.  Today, “social media has equipped hatemongers with a global bullhorn for bile”, and unverified assertions or outright lies are placed on an equal footing with facts and science.  Hate-fuelled language is moving from the margins to the mainstream, triggering real-life violence, he observed, noting that in Myanmar, social media has been exploited to demonize the Rohingya minority, inciting attacks and violence.  In Iraq, the recent proliferation of hate speech targeting Yazidis in Sinjar has stoked fears among the community that it will once again be the target of atrocity crimes.

Accordingly, he outlined concrete measures to make the digital space more inclusive and safer, including through the Global Digital Compact for an open, free, inclusive and secure digital future for all.  Calling for a surge in education financing, peacebuilding and global solidarity, he said that the values of compassion, respect and human fraternity are “our best antidote to the poison of discord and division”.  He further emphasized that it is the duty of religious leaders to prevent instrumentalization of hatred amidst their followers.

Ahmed Al-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif and Chairman of the Muslim Council of Elders, rejected claims that Islam is a religion of the sword or war, insisting that war is only acceptable for self-defence.  Urging the international community to move away from pointless conflicts, he noted tragedies caused by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In Syria, Libya and Yemen, ancient civilizations have been destroyed, and these lands have become battlegrounds forcing their people to flee. Highlighting efforts made by religious leaders to promote human fraternity, he said Al-Azhar Al-Sharif aims to identify shared responsibilities in addressing climate change and the escalating wars.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
How can different faiths work together for understanding and harmony?

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(continued from left column)

“It seems […] that we are going backwards in history, with the rise of myopic, extremist, resentful and aggressive nationalisms that have kindled conflicts which are not only anachronistic and outdated, but even more violent,” said Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States for the Observer State of the Holy See, speaking on behalf of Pope Francis. Today’s globalized world is experiencing the famine of fraternity, whose worst effect is armed conflict and war, he said, adding that to make peace a reality, the international community “must move away from the logic of the legitimacy of war”.  There is still time to write a new chapter of peace in history, he said.

In the ensuing debate, speakers underscored that human fraternity can help build a better world and advance peace, recognizing the significant role of community and religious leaders in cultivating tolerance.

The representative of the United Arab Emirates said the world is facing the highest number of armed conflicts since the Second World War, with 2 billion people living in places affected by conflict, while extremism has become a tool for inciting violence.  Spotlighting the challenges experienced by the Arab region, she drew attention to a draft resolution — submitted to the Council by her country and the United Kingdom — which seeks to address the threats of hate speech, racism and other forms of extremism in conflict situations.

Echoing his support for the draft, the speaker for the United Kingdom underscored that religious minorities have time and again been targeted in conflict, including the Yazidis in Iraq, the Rohingya in Myanmar and the Baha’i in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.  Religious communities and leaders can play a unique role in conflict prevention, reconciliation and peacebuilding initiatives, including at the grassroots level, where inter-religious and intercultural dialogue can help build trust between communities, he said.

Adding to that, Mozambique’s delegate emphasized that places of worship such as churches, mosques and synagogues should not be used as incubators of religious extremists or as battlefields.  Instead, they must be used for the purpose of peace and human fraternity.  Dialogue plays a key role in reversing this dangerous trend, she observed, noting the importance of peacebuilding mechanisms in addressing intolerance, hate speech, racism and other manifestations of extremism.

The universal premise of achieving a culture of peace seems to be increasingly distant, cautioned the representative of Ecuador, pointing to the unprecedented number of displaced persons, the devastation caused by natural hazards and the resurgence of hate speech.  Focusing on the roots of conflicts and the adoption of timely prevention measures is key to sustain the peacebuilding agenda, he said, highlighting the potential of preventive diplomacy to avoid escalations in violence.

For his part, China’s delegate rejected the concept of superior or inferior civilizations and cited attempts to transform or replace other civilizations as “disastrous” when applied to practice.  Specifically, he recalled that white supremacy wreaked devastation in Asia and Africa.  Nonetheless, he pointed to encouraging developments in the Middle East, including the resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran — an outcome of the Beijing dialogue — setting off reconciliation in the region.  Also, he said that developments such as Syria’s return to the League of Arab States inject positive energy into the unity of regional countries.

global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY, United Nations,

International civil society from Vienna: “We need negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Pressenza

After two intense days of work and discussion, the Final Declaration of International Civil Society has been circulated by the Promoters of the Vienna Peace Summit, and it will be sent to political leaders around the world, calling on them to act in support of a ceasefire and negotiations in Ukraine.

An important achievement – to which, among the summit organizers, the Italian entities of the “Europe for Peace” coalition contributed – that will enable the international peace movement to work jointly in the coming months on paths toward a just and possible Peace; a path to Peace that must be based on the principles of common security, international respect for human rights and self-determination of all communities. And with an upcoming date already defined: in fact, the Summit’s Final Declaration includes an invitation to civil society in all countries to join together in the implementation of “a week of global mobilization (from Saturday, September 30 to Sunday, October 8, 2023) for an immediate ceasefire and for Peace negotiations to end this war.”

The two days of debate [were used to] build a political alternative to a war that continues to upset the entire World with its evil and its capacity to destroy lives and the environment. Plenary speeches and working groups addressed from different perspectives what determines this war in terms of suffering, disasters, crises, and risks of nuclear accident or war. They also addressed, of course, how to be able to concretely solidarize with the Ukrainian people [who have been] under siege and bombardment for 16 months. Because saving lives is the priority, and war is certainly not the answer.

“We listened, moved, to the testimonies of Yuri, Olga, Oleg, Karina, and Nina who conveyed to us what it means to live under bombs or in exile, to have to decide in a matter of seconds where to go, whether to flee one’s own country or to hide so as not to end up in jail on terrorism charges. Those who participated in the Vienna Summit measure themselves against this reality, seeking paths of dialogue to rebuild mutual trust, to reaffirm solidarity. The path we call for must be taken by all civil society movements in order to make the alternative to war possible,” stresses Sergio Bassoli of the Peace Disarmament Network and one of the coordinators of “Europe For Peace.”

In the Final Declaration, the organizations of the broad coalition present highlight that they are “firmly united in their conviction that war is a crime against humanity and that there is no military solution to the current crisis,” expressing alarm over the ongoing war.

Condemnation for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is explicitly reiterated, stressing that “the institutions created to ensure Peace and Security in Europe have failed, and the failure of diplomacy has led to war. Diplomacy is now urgently needed to end the armed conflict before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

The work of all civil society organizations involved will converge on this shared demand: “negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.”

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

Below is the text of the “Vienna Declaration for Peace” drafted by the organizations participating in the summit:

Peace by peaceful means. Ceasefire and negotiations now!

We, the organizers of the International Summit for Peace in Ukraine, call on the leaders of all countries to act in support of an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

We are a broad and politically diverse coalition representing Peace movements civil society, including believers, in many countries. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and that there is no military solution to the current crisis.

We are deeply alarmed and saddened by the war. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and injured, and millions are displaced and traumatized. Towns and villages throughout Ukraine, as well as the natural environment, have been destroyed.

Far greater death and suffering could still occur if the conflict escalates to the use of nuclear weapons, a risk that is higher today than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The institutions created to ensure Peace and Security in Europe have failed, and the failure of diplomacy has led to war. Diplomacy is now urgently needed to end the armed conflict before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.

The path to Peace must be based on the principles of common security, international respect for human rights, and self-determination of all communities.

We support all negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.

We affirm our support for Ukrainian civil society defending its rights. We pledge to strengthen dialogue with those in Russia and Belarus who put their lives at risk to oppose war and protect democracy.

We call on civil society in all countries to join us in a week of global mobilization (Saturday, September 30 to Sunday, October 8, 2023) for an immediate ceasefire and for Peace negotiations to end this war.

Vienna, June 11, 2023

(Editor’s note: Some participants, according to Medea Benjamin regretted that the final declaration failed to condemn NATO for provocations that led to the war and sabotage of early attempts at mediation.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Government-ELN agreements, a milestone this week in Colombia

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION . .

An article from Prensa Latina (translation from Prensa Latina English – first five paragraphs – and by CPNN – rest of article)

The agreements between the Colombian Government and the National Liberation Army (ELN) in the third cycle of dialogues in Havana became a significant issue this week for the country and Latin America.

This Friday (June 9), at noon from Havana, Cuba, the parties formalized the bilateral ceasefire agreement, which will last 180 days (six months).

This new pact expands prohibited actions and provides for a robust UN monitoring and verification mechanism, with the accompaniment of the Catholic Church and social oversight, as well as the participation of the guarantor and accompanying countries.

This ceasefire will also allow the territories to have the conditions of tranquility required by the people and communities in the process of participation of society in the construction of peace that has been agreed upon during this cycle.

For the first time, the State and the ELN reached an agreement that implies the block treatment of the first three points of the Mexico Agreement, where the second cycle of talks took place; the participation of society in the construction of peace, democracy for peace and transformations for peace, Senator Iván Cepeda said.

– – –

The agreed cessation has progressive phases. The first, enlistment, is immediate. Then, on July 6, the end of offensive operations begins until reaching full validity, of 180 days, as of August 3, while monitoring and verification will begin soon.

(continued on right column)

(Click here for the Spanish version of this article.)

Questions related to this article:

What is happening in Colombia, Is peace possible?

(continued from left column)

A National Participation Committee will also be created, which will have the participation of 30 sectors of society to contribute to the transformation of the country and the achievement of Peace.

“We reached a partial agreement with the ELN like never before, which will be progressive until the final agreement in May 2025,” said President Petro.

The priority will be to achieve the protection of the civilian population in the conflict areas, starting with children, he added.

The head of state assured that human rights and international humanitarian law guide the agreement. He stressed that the participation of society will be fundamental, as well as the proposal for a great National Agreement that his government supports.

The parties thanked Cuba for its role as guarantor and for facilitating its territory to reach these agreements that will alleviate the communities affected by the internal conflict.

“The main effort in this process we owe to Cuba. Without that effort it would be impossible to be here,” said ELN commander Antonio García, at the closing of the Third Cycle of the Dialogue Table.

Likewise, Pablo Beltrán (the ELN negotiator) assured that the inclusion of Cuba on the US list of countries sponsoring terrorism is an injustice, while he thanked the Cuban government and people for their vocation for peace.

President Petro also described the inclusion of Cuba on that list as a profound injustice.

“I was telling President (Joe) Biden that if there has been an act of profound diplomatic injustice… a stab in the back… it was that Cuba ended up in that abject designation. From here I tell President Biden that this act of injustice must be amended, “he stressed.

Prior to this agreement, considered a milestone in Colombia, and one of the most significant achievements within the Total Peace policy of the Government of Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez, a forceful mobilization of the people took place in support of the mandate of both leaders and their change proposals.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

Austrian Censorship of Peace Conference Is An Outrage

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by By David Swanson, Kathy Kelly, John Reuwern and Brad Wolf from World Beyond War

Forty-eight hours before a global peace conference in Vienna, Austria, was to begin, the venue host abruptly cancelled. Peace, it seems, cannot be discussed, especially peace in Ukraine.

This news is a disturbing step in a growing trend.

Owners of the venue which was to host the Summit for Peace in Ukraine, announced on Wednesday, 7 June, 2023, their decision to cancel the agreement holding the summit on their premises. Fortunately, a new location was secured in Vienna (and anyone on Earth can sign up to take part online), but not before a smear campaign against the summit had been launched.

The venue owners reportedly explained: “We have decided to comply with the wishes of Ukraine and its embassy operating in Austria and have cancelled the rental of all rooms in the ÖGB catamaran for the event ‘International Summit for Peace in Ukraine’ next weekend.”

This was not just one venue taking this position. “On Wednesday, the Press Club Concordia also refused to make its premises in a central location in downtown Vienna available for a press conference of the ‘summit’.”

Supporters of the summit note the chilling innuendo caused by the abrupt cancellation of the summit. Speakers widely regarded for their moral and intellectual guidance have been undermined in statements intended to justify objections to the summit.

This is not an isolated incident. Western liberal ideals have long asserted that the best answer to mistaken speech was wiser speech and more of it. We now have a rapidly growing liberal consensus in favor, instead, of censoring media outlets, canceling speaking events, and forbidding people with unwanted points of view from even gathering together. Powers are being granted to governments, social media platforms, and other tech corporations that believers in democratic self-governance spent centuries claiming nobody should have.

Those who turn against free speech are often groups afraid they cannot win an honest debate. And so, they take up censorship. The movement for peace in Ukraine can take this as a compliment. Governments fear such a discussion of peace and instead smear this peace summit and the speakers.

An Austrian press report announced on Thursday that the venue (ÖGB Catamaran) had been withdrawn because the event was “under suspicion of propaganda.” What sort of propaganda? Well: “According to its own statements, the ‘International Summit for Peace in Ukraine’ wanted to show ways out of the war.” Under international law, propaganda for war is illegal and must be banned. Not a single nation on Earth complies with that requirement, raising up the value of free speech as trumping the rule of law. But speaking in favor of bringing a war to an end has now acquired the status of forbidden propaganda.

Moreover, the report explains, “some announced participants have no current fear of contact with the media of the aggressor.” In other words, if talk of negotiating peace is shut out of the media controlled by only one side of a war, speaking to media controlled by the other side — even to say exactly what one would have said to any other media outlet — is grounds for not only censorship but a ban on meeting and strategizing.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Question related to this article:
 
Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

How can we be sure to get news about peace demonstrations?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

The report gives some specifics: “The internationally prominent U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs, for example, as well as Anuradha Chenoy, ex-dean of India’s Jawarharlal Nehru University and an important representative of global civil society networking, have given interviews to the TV station Russia Today (RT). The channel has been blocked across the Union for Russian war propaganda in the wake of EU sanctions. Sachs also answered questions from Russian TV host and war advocate Vladimir Solovyov in December 2022. Solovyov has often called for attacking Germany and Great Britain as well.”

The “Press Club Concordia” also explained that the problem was that Jeffrey Sachs might do an interview on Russian media.

Not only is diplomacy shunned, but speaking to members of the media with whom one disagrees is equated with advocating whatever those journalists have advocated. This can only contribute to distrust, enmity, and war without end.

Not only did the venue say it was doing the wishes of the Ukrainian embassy, but the Ukrainian ambassador to Austria tweeted that peace activists were the fifth column and henchmen of the Russian government.

And who created the idea that the whole world must obey the wishes of the government of Ukraine? The government of the United States — a country where little time passes these days without news of some event cancelled to fulfill the wishes of the government of Israel.

Further, “Noam Chomsky, who will speak at the summit via video, for example, believes that NATO has ‘marginalized’ Russia for too long.” Whether that fact is in dispute, or merely the acceptability of stating it out loud, was not explained.

“Also physically present in Vienna, according to the program, should be Clare Daly, an Irishwoman and member of the EU Parliament and the parliamentary group Die Linke. Daly also spoke repeatedly to RT about the West’s ‘complicity’ in the war in Ukraine. She believes the sanctions are wrong: they would not harm Russia and would not help Ukraine. In the EU Parliament in early 2023 voted against a resolution holding Russia legally responsible for the war. Daly said she does support those parts of the text that condemn Russia for the invasion and call on the government in Moscow to immediately cease all military action and withdraw from Ukraine. However, she said she opposes providing weapons to Ukraine and expanding NATO’s presence in the region.”

So, opposing both sides of a war is just as unacceptable as opposing one side, in the view of these censors.

This is where we have arrived. Proposing to negotiate peace — without even suggesting what those negotiations should arrive at — is so unacceptable to proponents of war, that it cannot be discussed — not in any large gathering. And yet, despite the wars being waged in the name of “democracy” it is not clear how such censorship is driven by democracy or in align with democratic values. Nor is it clear how many steps, if any, remain between the varieties of censorship we have now and hardcopy book burnings of the past.

(Editor’s note: We were informed on June 13 that “the websites for the International Peace Bureau and the Peace in Ukraine summit were hacked the day after the conference but should be up and running soon.”)

Europe, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Can Pope Francis bring peace to Ukraine?

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article by Thomas Reese in the National Catholic Reporter

Pope Francis has launched a peace mission aimed at finding a settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war, upsetting Ukraine’s allies with his refusal to insist that Russia leave Ukraine as a starting point for negotiations. For their part, the Russians simply ignore the pope.

Western supporters of Ukraine accuse the pope of moral equivalency, treating both sides as equal. This is nonsense.

Just four weeks into the war, the pope condemned  the “the violent aggression against Ukraine” and the “senseless massacre where every day there is a repetition of slaughter and atrocities,” in his Sunday Angelus in March 2022. “There is no justification for this!”


Photo of meeting between the Pope and Ukrainian President Zelensky on May 13 (EFE)

The Vatican has always said that it wants a “just peace.” When America Media’s Gerard O’Connell  asked Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s foreign minister, what a just peace meant for the Vatican, Gallagher said it meant a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.

This is not to say the pope holds the West blameless. In June of last year Francis told La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit publication, that a couple of months before the war an unnamed “wise” diplomat had expressed concern to him about NATO. “They are barking at the gates of Russia,” the diplomat said. “And they don’t understand that the Russians are imperial, and they will not allow any foreign power to approach them. The situation could lead to war,” concluded the diplomat.

While Francis made clear that this was the diplomat’s opinion, it is hard not to conclude that Francis agreed with him. He seems to believe, as many in the Global South do, that NATO somehow either provoked or failed to prevent the war.

Francis has also noted “the interest in testing and selling weapons” to combatants in the war. There is no question that the American military-industrial complex is profiting in Ukraine, financially as well as strategically: The Russian war machine is being severely degraded without the loss of a single American life.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Religion: a barrier or a way to peace?, What makes it one or the other?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column).

But responding to those who accuse him of being pro-Putin, Francis told La Civilta Cattolica: “No, I am not. It would be simplistic and erroneous to say such a thing. I am simply against turning a complex situation into a distinction between good guys and bad guys, without considering the roots and self-interests, which are very complex.”

The pope acknowledged “the brutality and ferocity with which this war is being carried out” by the Russian side. “While we witness the ferocity and cruelty of Russian troops,” he said in the La Civilta Cattolica interview, “we should not forget the problems, and seek to solve them.”

The pope is not cheering on either side in this war, which is an essential quality needed in a mediator. The pope has appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi  as a special envoy for peace in Ukraine. Both sides have used the Vatican for facilitating exchanges of prisoners, which is a good sign.

With Ukraine unwilling to give up any of its territory — including Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 — is there something else that would appease Russia and allow Putin to save face in defeat? I think there is: nuclear weapons.

The West has always feared the Red Army sweeping into Europe — indeed, it’s the reason NATO exists. Because the U.S. and Europe were unwilling to pay for enough conventional weapons to stop what they considered a formidable force, they relied on tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Red Army’s invasion.

We now see that the Russian army is a Potemkin army, more show than substance. If Ukraine all by itself can hold off the Russians and score victories, NATO would wipe the floor with them without using tactical nuclear weapons.

This military reality calls for a rethinking of NATO’s nuclear policy. As part of settling the Ukraine-Russia war, NATO and the U.S. should do two things: First, swear off the first use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Second, negotiate the elimination or at least reduction of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

Ukraine will have to agree to not “officially” join NATO. The war has already made Ukraine part of NATO unofficially. Ukraine would continue to receive weapons, but no NATO troops can be deployed on Ukrainian soil.

Putin, as an authoritarian autocrat, can continue this war indefinitely. We must give him something to get him to stop. He could save face by telling his people that the war succeeded in forcing NATO into this deal.

There is a temptation to let the war go on as long as Russia is stymied and suffering huge military losses in the speculative hope that it will bring down Putin. But Ukraine is also suffering both military and civilian losses.

The pope reminds us to look at “the human side of the war,” the impact on people’s lives, the deaths, the refugees, the widows and orphans. The war cannot be examined only in terms of “geopolitical calculations.” Too many people are dying. The pope is right in calling for peace. Unnecessary tactical nuclear weapons in Europe would be a cheap price to pay for it.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

A global analysis of violence against women defenders in environmental conflicts

. . WOMEN’S EQUALITY . .

Excerpts from publication by Dalena Tran & Ksenija Hanaček in Nature

Abstract

Women environmental defenders face retaliation for mobilizing against extractive and polluting projects, which perpetrate violence against Indigenous, minority, poor and rural communities. The issue matters because it highlights the gendered nature of extractive violence and the urgent need to address the systemic patterns of violence that affect women defenders, who are often overlooked and underreported. Here we analyse violence against women defenders in environmental conflicts around the world. We use data from the Environmental Justice Atlas and employ log-linear and binomial regressions to find statistically significant patterns in displacement, repression, criminalization, violent targeting and assassinations committed against women defenders in extractive conflicts.


(Click on image to enlarge)

Statistical results indicate that violence against women defenders is concentrated among mining, agribusiness and industrial conflicts in the geographical South. Repression, criminalization and violent targeting are closely linked, while displacement and assassination appear as extreme outcomes when conflict violence worsens. Women defenders experience high rates of violence regardless of countries’ governance accountability and gender equality. This work contributes to the broader sustainability agenda by highlighting the need to address the impacts of extractive activities on women.

Main

Extractivism refers to projects extracting natural resources for exportation. It is an inherently unequal process often inciting extractivist violence, or the institutionalized use of brute force to displace and dominate communities for extractive and polluting projects such as mines or plantations. The extractive process frequently involves militarizing communities and assassinating environmental defenders, those advocating to protect environmental and human rights5. Such violence is typically justified by dehumanizing people and denying them agency through systematically excluding them from economic, social, political and cultural activities (for example, through classism, racialization and gendering). Extractive violence is also connected to ecocide, the notion that environmental destruction is criminal and has devastating genocidal impacts on affected communities dependent on the health of their environments for physical, spiritual, and cultural wellbeing. Genocidal outcomes are those exterminating and persecuting groups, assimilating survivors and erasing their culture.

Current literature describes a connection between colonial extractive attitudes, ecocide and genocide of Indigenous peoples, minorities, the poor and rural communities1. Ecocide typically begins with land grabbing, or forcefully dispossessing communities of their lands and natural resources. Such usurpation is secured through legal and institutional structures such as land ownership regimes disrupting common law tenure. This colonial control is also reinforced through covertly and overtly discriminatory ideological and discursive practices. Ensuing ecological destruction then becomes genocidal when causing conditions fundamentally threatening a group’s cultural and physical existence. More specifically, direct physical violence gives way to indirect forms of extermination through undermining place-based livelihoods, such as deforestation causing food instability, pollution causing health impacts, or structural inequalities increasing vulnerability to violence and ecological consequences.

There has been increasing attention to the ecocide–genocide nexus through environmental defender killings as well as slow violence wherein people suffer from long-term environmental harms. This study contributes an ecocide–genocide–gender connection to such literature. Violence against women environmental defenders (WEDs) is overlooked, and extractive violence is gendered. Corporations and states typically concentrate power among men during project negotiations, limiting women’s autonomy and normalizing their oppression. WEDs face retaliation because mobilizing defies gender expectations of docility (lack of retaliation) and sacrifice (absorption of extractive consequences).

(continued in right column)

Questions for this article

Protecting women and girls against violence, Is progress being made?

(continued from left column)

Assassinations are the most visible form of direct violence, but all threats to women defenders are difficult to document owing to censorship and a lack of dat. Lacking documentation of violence against women especially is also prevalent owing to discursive discrimination against women treating the loss of their lives as normal, deserved and ‘ungrievable. To address this gap, this article examines 523 cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) involving WEDs, 81 of which involve WEDs assassinated for their advocacy. Routine assassinations of WEDs are not isolated incidences, but rather political tactics forcefully making way for extractivism. Media reports often focus on gruesome details to sensationalize yet trivialize WEDs’ struggles, often not recording names, let alone their struggle. Patterns of extractive violence against women thus remain overlooked.

In this Article, we address the following questions: (1) Where and under which circumstances do WEDs experience different forms of violence leading up to their assassinations? (2) How do structural patterns of violence affect women defenders? Log-linear regression traced distributions of violence against WEDs across conflict types, commodities and impacts. Binomial regression then addressed structural patterns in countries where WEDs were assassinated. This article contributes global patterns of violence against WEDs. We broaden analyses to circumstances leading up to and including assassinations because ecocide is not limited to killings, but rather encompasses displacement, repression, criminalization and violent targeting. Given our statistical approach and the nature of the material, we are aware of the potential dehumanization of WEDs’ circumstances and denial of their agency. However, quantitative data analysis using a large, representative sample is necessary for strengthening arguments that patterns of violence against women defenders found in qualitative, locally focused case studies are not outliers, but rather are occurring worldwide.
Results

Regarding circumstances informing WED assassinations, extrajudicial killings predominantly occurred in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Many cases were in the Philippines, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico (Fig. 1). Even in Southern cases, some in Costa Rica, Kenya, Rwanda and Saint Lucia targeted Global North expatriates. The data are skewed towards the Philippines. There were 19 WED assassination cases, more than double compared with Colombia in second place. Some Philippines cases were massacres or serial killings, assassinating 26 WEDs across 19 cases, whereas cases elsewhere targeted one or two at a time.

Figure 2 shows that the types of conflict with high statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05) of violence against WEDs were biomass and land, mineral extraction and industrial and utilities conflicts. The distribution of violence throughout biomass and land conflicts (n = 146) was that nearly half of all corresponding cases involved repression (41%), criminalization (43%) and violent targeting (48%) of women defenders. . . .

Discussion (excerpts)

. . . . Overall, an ecocide–genocide–gender connection is thus apparent in how assassinations and extractive violence were situated within contexts producing gender-specific vulnerabilities for women defenders. Ecocidal dispossession of lands and resources, as many of the EJAtlas cases corroborate, often began upon intrusion of masculinized extractive industries into communities. Genocide caused cultural and physical erasure of peoples standing in the way of extractivism, and ecocide further accomplished such erasure through undermining women’s agency. As occurred in the deadliest countries towards WEDs, changing land ownership regimes8 used patriarchal ideologies to foster ecocidal conditions (extermination, persecution, survivor assimilation and cultural erasure) emboldening violence in subtly gendered manifestations of repression, criminalization, violent targeting and assassination.

The ecocide of Indigenous peoples across Southeast Asian EJAtlas cases, for example, has distinctly gendered aspects. Many Southeast Asian Indigenous peoples formerly had alternative gender cosmologies beyond man–woman binaries and with relatively more egalitarian power relations. Colonization goes beyond territorial invasion. Consequently, colonization and ensuing extractive land grabbing brought new legal, administrative and market structures concentrating (often militarized) power among men. We argue that, through discrimination and violence, these institutions committed ecocidal–genocidal–gendered violence by exterminating and persecuting Indigenous community leaders, erasing formerly egalitarian gender roles and relations, and assimilating survivors into marginalized, binary and unequal gendered labour and social divisions.

Ecocide rewrites WEDs’ histories and bodies as inferior and deserving of extermination. Ecocidal control of populations2 then occurs as fear of and actually experienced gendered (lethal) violence not only deters mobilizations but also creates impunity as women are less able to mobilize safely and openly. Moreover, while most cases do not explicitly report WED involvement or violence, this reflects representational and mobilization inequalities. For instance, there is a difference in how Indigenous and non-Indigenous women defenders negotiate and are impacted by extractive violence in different ways. Such intersectional differences exist and should be explored in future work.

global, WOMEN'S EQUALITY