DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Excerpts from the website of Mouvement de la Paix (translation by CPNN)

On the occasion of the first anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, let us show that there are peaceful alternatives to war. The International Peace Bureau (IPB), of which the Peace Movement is a member, calls on its members around the world to demonstrate on February 24 to 26, 2023 in favor of peace in Ukraine and in the world. .

The war has already claimed more than two hundred thousand lives (by conservative estimates). It has forced millions to flee their homes, caused widespread destruction of Ukrainian cities and strained already fragile supply chains that have made life more difficult for people around the world. .

We know that this war is unsustainable, and even worse, that it risks escalating that would threaten the lives and livelihoods of people around the world. Russia’s nuclear rhetoric in particular is irresponsible and demonstrates the vulnerability of this moment.

Furthermore, the direct and indirect impact of the war on the climate hinders the urgent need for a green transition. There is no easy solution to this war in Ukraine, but the current situation is unsustainable. Through global peace protests, we seek to pressure all parties involved in the conflict to act decisively for a ceasefire and to take steps to negotiate a long-term peace. .

Our calls for peace are not limited to Ukraine. For all conflicts in the world, we call on governments to refuse the logic of confrontation and war, to oppose nuclear danger and to commit to disarmament by signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TIAN).

We call on governments and states to act in favor of diplomacy, negotiation, conflict prevention and the establishment of common security systems.

We call on your support and your voices for peace. We invite you to join any existing event during this weekend of action, or plan your own initiative.

Together we are stronger and we can show that there is a global movement for alternatives to war and militarization.

Local actions on February 24 and 25, 2023

Moulins (03): Assemble Friday February 24 at 6 p.m. in front of the prefecture
Cannes (06): Assemble Friday February 24 at 6:30 p.m. in front of the SNCF station
Nice (06): Assemble Saturday February 25 at 2 p.m. Place Garibaldi
Carcassonne (11): Assemble Saturday February 25 at 11 a.m. at the Porte des Jacobins
Marseille (13): “Together for peace” rally, meeting at the Old Port at the foot of La Canebière, Saturday February 25 at 10:30 a.m. – speech before a march to the prefecture
La Rochelle (17): Assemble on February 25 at 10:30 a.m. in front of the prefecture with the CGT, the Libre Pensée, the AFPS and the Mouvement de la paix
Bourges, Vierzon (18): Saturday February 25, 2023 in Vierzon from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Saturday market in the city center Circle of silence and peace: Saturday February 25, 2023 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., place Gordène in Bourges
Brive (19): Assemble Saturday February 25 at 10:30 a.m. in the Guierle gardens, in front of the tree of peace

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the French original of this article.)

(Continued from left column)

Ajaccio (20): Assemble on February 24 Place Abbatucci at 6 p.m.
Dijon (21): Assemble in front of the prefecture Friday February 24 at 6 p.m., with an appointment with the prefect. And Sunday 26, in Marsannay la cote near Dijon at 6 p.m. in front of the war memorial in tribute to Lucien Dupont, resistance fighter shot on February 26, 1942, and at the request of his daughter, Christiane Dupont-Lauthelier, member of the Mouvement de la Paix , to repeat here too, our refusal of any war
Guéret (23): Assemble on February 24 at 6 p.m. in front of the town hall of Guéret
Besançon (25): Assemble on February 25, 2023 at 2 p.m. on the Place du 8 Septembre. http://mvtpaix25.free.frPont Saint Esprit (30): Assemble Saturday, February 25 from 9:30 a.m. at the weekly market (near the Universe bar) – Pax Rhona Committee
Toulouse (31): Assemble Friday, February 24 at 5:30 p.m., Square du Capitole, in front of the Jean Jaurès stele at the call of the CGT, Solidaires, the Mouvement de la Paix, the MRAP, France Cuba, Libre Pensée, of “Stop Fueling War”, the Left Party, the PCF and the Center of the Kurdish Democratic Community of Toulouse
Libourne (33): Assemble on February 24 from 6 p.m. central square
Biganos (33): Assemble of the Gironde committee on February 24 at 6 p.m. Market Hall
Béziers (34): Assemble Saturday February 25 at 11 a.m. on Place Jean Jaurès
Rennes (35): Assemble and united march Saturday February 25 at 5 p.m. RDV Bd du Mail François Mitterrand. And Friday, February 24, meet at Place de la République at 5 p.m. with Bretagne Solidarité Ukraine. Distribution of Peace Movement and BIP calls at Rennes 2 University on Wednesday noon 22/01. Rennes 1 University Thursday noon 23/02. Market of the lices Saturday 25 in the morning 10h to 13h.
Saint Malo (35): Assemble on the forecourt of the station at 5:30 p.m. on Friday February 24
Tours (37): Assemble on February 24 from 4 p.m. in front of the Town Hall, Place Jean Jaurès
Grenoble (38): Assemble rue Félix Poulat (opposite the Church of St Louis) on Saturday February 25 at 2:30 p.m.
Saint-Etienne (42): symbolic “Piquet de Paix” with torches around the statue of Jean Jaurès Friday February 24 from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. – Comité-Loire du Mouvement de la paix
Nantes (44): Assemble on Saturday February 25, 2023 at 4 p.m., rue de la paix on the square in front of Decré
Angers (49): Assemble Friday, February 24 at 6 p.m. in front of the prefecture Place Michel Debré, for the filing of a motion
Cherbourg (50): Assemble Friday, February 24, 2023 Place du theater at 6 p.m. at the call of the CGT, FSU, CNT, Mouvement de la Paix, PCF, GENERATION.S, France Insoumise
Lorient (56): Friday February 24 at 5:30 p.m., place Aristide Briand, Rally followed by a Peace March at the call of: Mouvement de la Paix, Association France Palestine Solidarité, ATTAC, UD CGT 56, FSU 56, CFDT 56, PCF 56, PS Lorient
Nevers (58): Assemble Friday February 24 at 5:30 p.m. in front of the Prefecture. At the initiative of the Nièvre Committee
Pau (64): Assemble in front of the prefecture Friday 24 at 6 p.m. at the call of 11 organizations
Vaulx-en-velin (69): Assemble Friday 24 at 6.30 p.m. at the Garden of Peace and Freedoms, rue Condorcet
Vesoul (70): Assemble Saturday February 25 at 11 a.m., 1 rue la Préfecture
Annecy (74): Rally for Peace Friday 24 at 6 p.m. in front of the Prefecture
Paris (75): Assemble Saturday February 25 at 3 p.m. Place Edmond Michelet (right next to the Center Pompidou and not far from the Forum des Halles)
Le Havre (76): Assemble on Saturday February 25 at 2:30 p.m. in front of the Volcano – Rue de Paris, at the initiative of the Urgence Ukraine Le Havre collective, in which the Le Havre section of the Mouvement de la Paix participates
Castres (81): Assemble Saturday 25 from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., rue Sabatier in front of Monoprix
Avignon (84): Assemble in front of the town hall on February 24 at 6:00 p.m. Vaucluse Committee of the Peace Movement
Epinal (88): Assemble at the call of the Mouvement de la Paix and the member organizations of the collective “En marche pour la Paix”, Friday February 24, 6 p.m. in front of the Vosges prefecture
Nanterre (92): Assemble Friday, February 24 at 4 p.m. at the bottom of the stairs of the Grande Arche de la Défense and at 5 p.m., gathering in front of the Hauts de Seine Prefecture to deliver a letter to the Prefect
Saint-Denis (93): Rally Friday, February 24 from 6 p.m. in front of the town hall

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Vicenç Fisas in Other News (Creative Commons: Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0)) – (translation by CPNN)

The truth, however, is that this war in the Ukraine cannot be won by anyone, however it ends, because the harm that has been done transcends any possibility of resolution. The accumulated hatred is of such magnitude, proportional to the level of destruction and loss of human lives, that any reconciliation project will not be possible in the medium term.

Ukrainian soldiers fire an anti-aircraft gun near Bajmut on February 4.
EFE/EPA/SERGEY SHESTAK

One year after the start of the war in Ukraine, it is good to reflect on what has happened and what has not been done. The balance is sinister and not at all hopeful, since there is no end in sight in the short term. In my opinion, several points should be taken into consideration to reflect on the past, present and future.

Decisions that are irreversible or difficult to reverse have been made, such as increasing military spending, ending the status of neutral countries and expanding NATO. These decisions jeopardize the future of European security, and have ruined any possibility of resuming a shared security policy that could one day incorporate Russia. Many years will pass before this possibility can occur. Even if it is very costly, it is our obligation to think about future scenarios where we all fit into European security.

We have returned to the mentality of the cold war, of friend-foe and good and bad, increasing the warmongering and arms culture, not only in Europe, but throughout the world. We are facing a brutal setback in terms of prospects for peace and conflict resolution, and in the old continent a fatal blow has been dealt to the OSCE, which was the body that could have acted promptly and effectively in the moments of tension prior to the war. However, it was completely rendered useless, turning it into an already useless and discredited body in the face of the warmongering rage. Moreover, peace diplomacy, that of States with the capacity to influence and that of regional or international organizations, was hijacked and then annulled from the start, leaving us orphaned with actors willing to play this necessary role.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the original article in Spanish.)

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

(Continued from left column)

The decisions, from the first moment, have been on the military route, to the delight of the arms manufacturers, which has given rise to a continuous escalation on the war front, with the conviction of both parties that they could win the war, and in the case of Ukraine, thanks to a continuous supply of weapons by third countries. Russia, for its part, has also resorted to buying weapons abroad. The truth, however, is that this war cannot be won by anyone, however it ends, because the harm that has been done transcends any possibility of resolution. The accumulated hatred is of such magnitude, proportional to the level of destruction and loss of human life, that any reconciliation project will not be possible in the medium term. Hopefully and if things change, perhaps the next generation may be able to mend the wounds. For the moment, what can be affirmed is that everyone loses, and it is delusional to think that destruction will one day lead us to glory, when it only leads us to misery.

It is not often that, in the face of an armed conflict, people bet so much on war and put aside the negotiating path to carry out a peace process. In the last half century, 90% of wars have ended at a negotiating table and a final peace agreement. Ukraine is one of the exceptions, and we should ask ourselves if this is a merit or a very serious mistake that we are committing.

I don’t know when, but I am convinced that one day the two parties will have to sit down to negotiate the status of eastern Ukraine, with the terrible paradox that any agreement that can be reached will hopefully not be very different from what that should have been done after the Minsk agreements were signed in 2015. Failure to do so is what has led us to where we are today, so it will be terrible to think of the price that will be paid for not having acted diligently when it was appropriate. In this sense, responsibilities are shared, although no one seems capable of recognizing their own mistakes or negligence.

– – – –

* Vicenç Fisas is a Spanish analyst of conflicts, international politics and peace processes. He has directed the School for the Culture of Peace of the Autonomous University of Barcelona from its foundation in 1999 until 2016, and he was the holder of the UNESCO Chair on Peace and Human Rights at the university. He received the National Human Rights Award in 1988.

(Thank you to Other News for having sent this to CPNN.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Boaventura de Sousa Santos* in MEER

One hundred years after World War I, Europe’s leaders are sleepwalking toward a new, all-out war. As in 1914, they believe that the war in Ukraine will be limited and short-lived. In 1914, the word in Europe’s chancelleries was that the war would last three weeks. It lasted four years and resulted in more than 20 million deaths. As was the case in 1918, the dominant view today holds that it is necessary to inflict exemplary punishment on the aggressor, so as to leave it broken and humbled for a long time.  

Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) brought peace to Europe until 1914

In 1918, the defeated power was Germany (and the Ottoman Empire). There were dissenting voices (John Maynard Keynes and a few others) for whom the complete humbling of Germany would be disastrous in terms of the reconstruction of Europe and of a lasting peace on the continent and in the world. Their warnings were not heeded, and twenty-one years later Europe was again at war. There followed five years of destruction that left more than 70 million people dead. History does not repeat itself, nor does it seem to teach us anything, but it does illustrate and highlight similarities and differences. Let me offer two illustrations.

By 1914, Europe had been experiencing relative peace for a hundred years, a period during which there had been many wars, but of a limited and short-lived nature. The secret of this peace lay in the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815). Held with the purpose of putting an end to the cycle of change, turmoil and war that had been set in motion by the French Revolution and made worse by the Napoleonic wars, it led to a treaty that was signed nine days before Napoleon’s final defeat at Waterloo. The whole conference was dominated by conservative forces, and the period that followed came to be known as the Restoration (of the old European order). The reason that meeting in Vienna comes to mind at this time has to do with another of its aspects. It was chaired by Klemens von Metternich, a great Austrian statesman whose main concern was to bring together all the European powers, the victors and the vanquished, in order to ensure lasting peace. It was clear that the defeated power (France) would have to suffer the consequences (territorial losses), but it signed the treaty along with all the other powers (Austria, England, Russia and Prussia), with conditions being imposed on all so as to ensure lasting peace across Europe. And so it came to be.

When compared to the present situation, there are numerous differences. The main difference is that, although this time the war is also taking place in Europe, the warring parties are a European and a non-European power (Russia and the US, respectively). The conflict has all the characteristics of a proxy war, one in which the two sides use a third country – ‘the country of sacrifice’ (in the present case, Ukraine) – to achieve geostrategic goals that go well beyond the country in question and even the region to which it belongs (Europe). In fact, the only reason Russia is at war with Ukraine is because it is at war with NATO, an organization whose Supreme Allied Commander for Europe “is traditionally a US commander.”

As an organization, NATO has been at the service of US geostrategic interests, especially since the end of the first Cold War. Once a steadfast champion, in other geopolitical contexts, of the self-determination of peoples, Russia is now illegally sacrificing these same principles to assert its own security concerns, after failing to have them recognized through peaceful means, and out of an undisguised imperial nostalgia. For its part, since the end of the first Cold War the US has striven to deepen Russia’s defeat, a defeat which in fact was probably more self-inflicted than brought about by any superiority on the part of its opponent. For a brief period, the diplomatic debate in Washington was between ‘partnership for peace’ and ‘the expansion of NATO to ensure the security of the emerging countries of the Soviet bloc’. Under President Clinton, the latter policy prevailed. Albeit for different reasons, the US, too, sees Ukraine as the ‘country of sacrifice’. In this light, the ultimate goal of the war in Ukraine is to inflict an unconditional defeat on Russia, preferably one that leads to regime change in Moscow. The duration of the war depends on that goal.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

Where is Russia’s incentive to end the war when the British Prime Minister permits himself to say that sanctions against Russia will continue, no matter what Russia’s position is at the present moment? Is it enough that Putin be ousted (as was the case with Napoleon in 1815), or is it Russia that needs to be ousted so that China’s expansion can be halted? There was also regime change in the 1918 humbling of Germany, but it all ended up leading to Hitler and an even more devastating war. President Zelensky’s political greatness could be construed as being either in recognition of the brave patriot who defends his country from the invader to the last drop of blood, or in recognition of the brave patriot who, faced with the imminence of so many innocent deaths and the asymmetry in military strength, successfully enlists the support of his allies to negotiate fiercely in order to secure a dignified peace. The fact that the former construction is now the prevalent one has probably little to do with President Zelensky’s personal preferences.

My second illustration of similarities and differences vis-à-vis the recent past concerns Europe’s geopolitical position. During the two world wars of the 20th century, Europe was the self-proclaimed center of the world. That is why we call them world wars. About four million of ‘Europe’s’ troops were in fact African and Asian, and many thousands of non-European deaths were the price paid by the inhabitants of remote colonies of the countries involved, sacrificed in a war that did not concern them. Now, however, Europe is but a small corner of the world, which the war in Ukraine will render even smaller. For centuries it was the farthest tip of Eurasia, the huge land mass that stretched from China to the Iberian Peninsula and witnessed the exchange of knowledge, products, scientific innovations and cultures. Much of what was later attributed to European exceptionalism (from the scientific revolution of the 16th century to the industrial revolution in the 19th century) cannot be understood, nor would it have been possible, without those centuries-old exchanges.

The war in Ukraine – especially if it goes on for too long – runs the risk not only of amputating one of Europe’s historic powers (Russia), but also of isolating it from the rest of the world, notably from China. The world is far bigger than what we get to see through European lenses. Seeing through these lenses, Europeans have never felt so strong, so close to their larger partner, so sure of standing on the right side of history, with the whole planet being run by the world of the ‘liberal order,’ a world finally feeling strong enough to go forth sometime soon and conquer – or at least neutralize – China, after having destroyed China’s main partner, Russia. Seeing through non-European lenses, on the other hand, Europe and the US stand haughtily all but alone, probably capable of winning one battle, but on their way to certain defeat in the war of history.

More than half of the world’s population lives in countries that have decided not to join the sanctions against Russia. Many of the UN countries that voted (rightly) against the illegal invasion of Ukraine did so based on their historical experience, which consisted in being invaded, not by Russia, but rather by the US, England, France or Israel. Their decision was not dictated by ignorance, but by precaution. How can they trust countries that created SWIFT – a financial transfer system aimed at protecting economic transactions against political interference – only to end up removing from that system a country on political grounds? Countries that arrogate to themselves the power to confiscate the financial and gold reserves of sovereign nations like Afghanistan, Venezuela and now Russia? Countries that trumpet freedom of expression as a sacrosanct universal value, but resort to censorship the moment they are exposed by it? Countries that are supposed to cherish democracy and yet have no qualms about staging a coup whenever an election goes against their interests? Countries in whose eyes the ‘dictator’ Nicolas Maduro becomes a trading partner overnight, because the circumstances have changed?

The world is no longer a place of innocence – if it ever was.

– – – –

* Boaventura de Sousa Santos is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the School of Economics, University of Coimbra (Portugal), Distinguished Legal Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School and Global Legal Scholar at the University of Warwick. He is Director of the Center for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Scientific Coordinator of the Permanent Observatory for Portuguese Justice..