Category Archives: FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Mazin Qumsiyeh: Old story- new twist

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

A blog Jan 24, 2025 by Mazin Qumsiyeh (abbreviated)

Will history repeat itself but now with a very different outcome especially in the era of global environmental catastrophe powered by greed and militarism? To review reality locally and globally helps us find answers. Locally, Israeli apartheid forces are now doing in our parts of the West Bank what they did to Gaza. Ethnic cleansing, destruction of property, and massive violations of human rights ranging from right to move right to worship, right to simple dignified life.  People here are scared that this is merely the beginning of accelerated genocide and ethnic cleansing  as perpetrated in Gaza.  

We have repeatedly warned of the consequences of Western collusion with genocide and ecocide.  The fate of Gaza will be the fate of humanity if not enough people wake up in time to the global reality of simply unsustainability of “might makes right” colonial policies.  

At Trump’s inauguration, the billionnaires were in the front row while his picks for secretaries were behind them. This image sums the momentous transformations gripping our planet. It used to be argued that the deep state consist of moneyed interests, largely hidden. Now we reached a point that murderous moneyed interests no longer work behind the scenes. The ultraright and fascists and neoNazis and Zionists are front and centre and openly cause millions to suffer with impunity. They even brag about their “common interests”.

For example, let us take the spectacle of the “World Economic Forum”  this past week (for a run-in I had with this forum in 2006, see http://qumsiyeh.org/theworldeconomicsforumcontroversy/). The right wing CEOs and government officials like the President of Argentina openly declared building an alliance of leaders around the world who believe and practice policies of “money trumps people”. At the same forum convicted felon Donald Trump delivered a belligerent, triumphalist, and (textbook) colonialist speech touting a vision of the world where elite business interests trump human rights.

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

The fate of Gaza, will it be the fate of humanity?

(article continued from left column)

Eisenhauer warned US citizens in his farewell speech: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Eisenhauer did not anticipate how horrific it would be in the 21st century nor did not anticipate an alliance of neocolonial powers reinvigorated and working towards the same  goals: making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and wrecking the global environment while unleashing militarism and wars in unprecedented cruelly like we see in Palestine (genocide and ecocide). Our species is at a pivotal moment in history never experienced before. We are then many, they are the few. If more of the many mobilize quickly we may still have a chance to save ourselves and our planet. . . .

Stay Humane and keep hope alive

Mazin Qumsiyeh
A bedouin in cyberspace, a villager at home
Professor, Founder, and (volunteer) Director
Palestine Museum of Natural History
Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability
Bethlehem University
Occupied Palestine
http://qumsiyeh.org
http://palestinenature.org
facebook pages
Personal https://www.facebook.com/mazin.qumsiyeh.9
Institute https://www.facebook.com/PIBS.PMNH

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

For Nobel Peace Prize: Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, Bethlehem, Palestine

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

A press release from Mairead Corrigan of the Peace People

Nobel Peace Laureate, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, to-day nominated Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh for the Nobel peace prize.   Maguire said ‘I have great pleasure in nominating Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh for the 2025 Nobel peace prize. 


Mazin Qumsiyeh

“I have met professor Mazin and have followed his inspiring peace work for many decades.    Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh is a life scientist, teacher and activist for peace, nonviolence and the sustainability of human and natural communities over the past 50 years. 

Qumsiyeh was born in Beit Sahour, the Shepherds’ field on the outskirts of Bethlehem.  He got his formal education in Jordan and the USA in areas of biology and medical genetics.  Yet the pressures of the Israel occupation on his people and the pressure on the environment that culminated in genocide and ecocide ensured Qumsiyeh pursued a life focused on peace-making, non-violent resistance, service to people, and service to nature. 

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(article continued from left column)

In the l990 he created peace groups like the Triangle Middle East dialogue and led the Palestinian American congress.  He activated and led a chapter of the American Arab anti-discrimination committee receiving the Raymond Jallow award for activism.  He organized a petition garnering over one million signatures supporting the right of Palestinian refugees.  He was the key founder of the Palestine right to return coalition.  (PRRC).  He organized what was at that time the largest demonstrations for Palestine in Washington DC with over 5000 attending (only in 2024 during the genocide in Gaza did larger demonstrations happen).  

He founded the Wheels of Justice bus tour promoting non-violence with justice.  Between 2000 and 2006 the tour team reached 48 states speaking at over 1200 colleges and universities over 400 schools and hundreds of community centers, churches and mosques.  (more background on prof. Qumsiyeh on;   www.//qumsiyeh.org   
 
He oversaw many conservation projects including formulating the national biodiversity strategy and action plan and creating a new protected area network and landscape for nature conservation.  But perhaps his most enduring legacy is the tens of thousands of children empowered in peacemaking and environmental stewardship including with the mobile educational unit.  More background is;   https://palestinenature.org 

(Editor’s note: Mairead Maguire is a laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize.)

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

The Elders mourn the loss of President Jimmy Carter

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

A press release from The Elders

The Elders are deeply saddened at the passing of their dear friend and colleague Jimmy Carter, who was a hugely admired and respected member of the group from its founding in 2007 until he chose to step down as an active member in 2016 on health grounds.

As a former President of the United States who went on to build a global reputation for his work with The Carter Center in monitoring elections and championing public health issues, he brought immense experience and expertise to the Elders’ work, combined with passionate advocacy for social justice and human rights. In 2002 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

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)

Both as President and in his later work, Jimmy Carter was a tireless supporter of peace in the Middle East. He played a key role in Elders’ visits to the region, commanding great respect for his forthright honesty and ability to deal on equal terms with all those he met, from presidents to the humblest grassroots activists. His deep Christian faith and his 77-year-long marriage to his beloved wife Rosalynn (1926-2023) were among the driving forces in his long and active life.

Juan Manuel Santos, Chair of The Elders, said:

“We are all devastated at the loss of our dear friend Jimmy Carter. Jimmy brought the gravitas of the Presidential office as well as the passion of an activist to The Elders. Even into his 90s, and after his cancer was diagnosed, he inspired us all with his boundless energy and enthusiasm for working to make the world a better place. While we mourn his death today, we also affirm our determination as Elders to continue to uphold his values and beliefs into the future. The world needs more leaders like him.”

All of the Elders, their Advisory Council, and staff team members send their heartfelt condolences to Jimmy’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. They have lost a devoted father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.

The world has lost an inspirational figure – but one whose achievements will not be forgotten and whose commitment to peace, democracy, and human rights will endure to inspire future generations.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Personal Souvenirs of Federico Mayor

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

Special for CPNN by David Adams, CPNN coordinator

In the words of Margaret Mead, “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

I was privileged to know and work with Federico Mayor who was one of these “thoughtful committed individuals” who changed the world. He was nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize, and as Frederik Heffermehl wrote in his book, “The Real Nobel Prize”, he should have received it.

Here are some of my personal souvenirs of working with him.


Mayor at the meeting of the Culture of Peace Advisory Group in February 1999, with Anaisabel Prera Flores (left) and Enzo Fazzino (behind)

In 1986, when I went to Seville to join scientists from around the world to discuss whether war is part of human nature, I was introduced to a scientist from Spain, Federico Mayor Zaragoza. I was told, “He is the John F Kennedy of Spain.” Like Kennedy, he was very handsome with deep blue eyes and black hair and very much a “ladies’man.” In addition to his university professorship, he was also involved with government administration, including having served as the Education Minister in the Spanish government.

Mayor signed the Seville Statement as a scientist.. In 1956 At the age of 22, he had obtained his doctorate in pharmacy and in 1966 at the age of 32, he had gone to work for two years as a researcher in the laboratory of Nobel laureate Hans Krebs in Oxford, best known to physiologists like myself for having discovered and described the Krebs cycle. This is the chemical reactions occurring in the mitochondria, by which almost all living cells produce energy. Krebs told him, “Don’t forget that research consists in seeing what anybody can see and in thinking what nobody has ever thought,” which Mayor said was an inspiration to him.

After Seville, when I undertook the dissemination of the Statement on Violence, Mayor was a big help. He wrote me in September of 1986: “0ur snowball is growing fast…If all the snowballs starting their way would have such strength, all the world would be covered with snow. I hope that we will succeed to cover it with peace.”

It was no accident that his words to me were poetic. Like me, he wrote poetry. Over the years we would exchange our poems. He sent me his published books of poetry, and I started my UNESCO mission reports to him with a poem. I remember once that he distributed one of these mission reports to the Executive Board of UNESCO over the objections of his chief of staff who complained, “I will not send a poem to the Executive Board!”

In 1987, Mayor was elected the Director-General of UNESCO. He had previously served at UNESCO in 1978-1981 as Deputy Director-General.

In 1988, responding to the invitation of Felix Houghouet-Boigny of Côte d’Ivoire to hold an international conference in Yamoussoukro on “Peace in the Minds of Men,” Mayor convened a team to plan the conference. He invited me to be part of this team in order to promote the Seville Statement on Violence. In fact, he put me as the first speaker in the conference to introduce it.

It was during the planning meetings for Yamoussoukro that I got to know Felipe MacGregor from Peru who introduced the concept of the culture of peace, which became the theme of the Conference.

Responding to the recommendations of Yamoussoukro in 1989, UNESCO formally adopted both the Seville Statement on Violence and the Culture of Peace as official policies. And in 1992, Mayor invited me to take my sabbatical from Wesleyan University to come to UNESCO to work for dissemination of the Seville Statement. The 47-page UNESCO brochure on the Statement is one of the fruits of that year.

1992 was the year that the UN Security Council adopted the proposal of Secretary-General Boutros Ghali, prepared at Yale University, to establish a UN military force that could be used by the Council to enforce its decisions. It proposed to establish on a permanent basis the Blue Helmets previously decided on a temporary basis to intervene after civil wars in countries like El Salvador and Mozambique

I was horrified by the the vision of a global tyranny that such a plan could bring about. The US had gained total control of the Security Council at that time due to the fall of the Soviet Union. At UNESCO, working with Georges Kutukdjian, who had led the planning for Yamoussoukro, I developed a proposal for a Culture of Peace Program that would bring peace through joint projects by former enemies rather than through the imposition of armed force.

On my birthday, May 13, 1992, Mayor invited me to have breakfast with him on the top floor of UNESCO headquarters. He was drinking milk to control an ulcer caused by the stress of his his job as Director-General. I presented the 3-page plan for a Culture of Peace Program, and he said simply, “We’ll do it.” “But”, he said, “it cannot be presented by you because the United States is not a member of UNESCO;” The US had withdrawn a few years earlier to protest UNESCO’s siupport for Palestine and UNESCO’s proposal to aid the Global South to develop their own news agencies. So, instead, Mayor sent me to Ahmed Sayyad, President of the Executive Board, who agreed to present the proposal. The Sayyad proposal was adopted by a standing ovation of the UNESCO Executive Board in November, 1992. Sayyad went on to devote his life to the culture of peace, including as the Assistant-Director General for External Relations.

In 1993, Mayor invited me to take a leave of absence from my university to come to Paris and to prepare the culture of peace program. Again, since the United States was not a member of UNESCO, I could not head up the program, but I should work under a new director. Mayor chose Leslie Atherley from Barbados to head the program along with Edouard Matoko from the Congo. The two of them had taken the courageous action to work for education in Iraq despite the war and the objections of the United States.

But I needed a post. My university had told me that if I did not return immediately, I would lose my job as professor. And by the rules of UNESCO they should not give a post to someone from a country that was not a member state. Years later, I was told by the staff member concerned, that Mayor told him to ignore the rules and to give me a post without going through the necessary procedures.

This was a quality of Federico Mayor that made him great, and that infuriated the rich Member States of UNESCO. Mayor did not follow the rules if they stood in the way of important policy decisions.

In 1993, Mayor was re-elected as Director-General of UNESCO. He concluded his acceptance speech with the following words: “From everything I have just said you will have gathered that I intend to devote myself personally, in the coming years, to the culture of peace, the peace of peoples and the peace of individuals, peace that is the prime condition for discharging our duties as men and women to the full, our mission as human beings.”

At UNESCO, Mayor personally lobbied to achieve more than 50 declarations for a culture of peace from important international bodies, as listed here. These, and many others, are also listed in Mayor’s own publication, “History of the Culture of Peace”, that he updated as recently as 2019.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

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)

In those years, under Mayor’s leadership, at the Culture of Peace Program, we established national culture of peace programs, beginning with El Salvador and Mozambique and including later, a national program in the Russian Federation.

On a few occasions Mayor and I published together. The first was in 1993 with the article, “How Psychology Can Contribute to a Culture of Peace” that was given the place of honor as the first article in a new journal, Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, appearing only under his name. This article was my way of explaining to Mayor, (and to the journal’s audience, how the approach of the Culture of Peace Program was based on the findings of the Robbers Cave experiment of the psychologist Muzafer Sherif. This was the principle of cross-conflict participation which we used in El Salvador and Mozambique, getting the former enemies to work for peace by planning together projects of social projects.

Unfortunately, rich member states of UNESCO refused Mayor’s request to fund the 50 or so projects drafted by the former enemies in El Salvador and Mozambique. The one exception, a project for rural women in El Salvador, funded by the German Development Agency, was a great success, proving that the method was successful. If the other projects had been funded, we can imagine that El Salvador and Mozambique could have escaped from the culture of war which has once again descended upon them. And perhaps the rest of the world would have turned away from its domination by the military-industrial complex.

The opposition to Mayor’s work for the culture of peace by of the rich Member States and their military-industrial complex would only increase over the years.

The failure of our national programs led to conflict in our unit at headquarters. I took the position that the approach of national programs had failed and that we should turn to working primarily with the civil society by establishing a news network for their actions that promoted a culture of peace. The rest of the unit disagreed. Like the rest of the United Nations founded on a military model in 1945, UNESCO has no effective means for conflict resolution within the organization. Unlike many large corporations, that have come to establish conflict resolution methods, the UN and UNESCO have resisted reform. In our case, we tried to resolve our conflict with the use of outside mediators. When this failed, I went personally to Mayor, breaking the old military rules of UNESCO by going over the head of my director, and I told him that I could no longer work in the organization.

Mayor’s response was to ask me to be patient and he would give me a new responsibility. First, using funds gained by the return of the UK to UNESCO, he gave me resources for contracts for a culture of peace news network in the six languages of the organization. Then, a few months later he put me in charge of a new unit to manage the International Year for the Culture of Peace (IYCP) that had been voted by the UN in New York.

The contracts for a culture of peace news network were awarded, but without exception, they eventually failed. After leaving UNESCO, I carried on the work without any money.

But the International Year for the Culture of Peace was a success, thanks to Mayor’s support including two of his management decisions. He put Anaisabel Prera Flores in charge of mobilizing the sectors of UNESCO, and assigned Enzo Fazzino to work with me in the IYCP unit. I took on the task of preparing, along with Sema Tanguiane, the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace that was eventually adopted by the UN General Assembly. And Enzo took charge of the Manifesto 2000 that translated the UN resolution into everyday language by which individuals could sign and promise to promote a culture of peace in their everyday lives. Thanks to the engagement of UNESCO’s global network of national and civil-society organizations, the Manifesto 2000 was signed by 75 million people, including more than a million in India, Nepal, Colombia, Brazil, Korea and Japan. The first 700,000 signatures came from Algeria where it was sung from the mosques and distributed on the streets by the Scout Movement.

The success of the IYCP was achieved despite the fact that our attempts with Mayor’s help to raise funds were not supported by the rich Member States or by the UN foundation. To support our efforts, Mayor diverted funds from the budgets of pet projects of Member States at UNESCO. This did not make us popular with our colleagues, and it increased Mayor’s conflict with these states.

Mayor’s tenure ended at UNESCO in 1999, so he was no longer the Director-General of UNESCO when the IYCP achieved its full success. Instead, he founded a Culture of Peace Foundation in Spain.

Without Mayor’s leadership, the work of the culture of peace at UNESCO came to a halt. The organization did little to support the International Decade for a Culture of Peace that had been voted by the UN for 2001-2010.

But Mayor did not stop. He obtained funding from Catalonia and hired me and a team of youth to mobilize support for the Culture of Peace Decade in the civil society. This was successful for almost a thousand civil society organizations, as shown in the reports that we prepared in 2005 and 2010.

The member states of the UN failed to publish our reports, despite effective face-to-face lobbying by teams of youth in 2005 and 2006, so Mayor published the 2010 report as a glossy brochure, and we distributed the copies by hand to UN delegates attending the General Assembly meeting about the Decade.

During the Decade, Mayor was named to head up the new United Nations initiative for an Alliance of Civilizations. In this capacity, he once again hired me and our team of youth, to contact youth organizations around the world and ask them what kind of support they needed to promote a culture of peace. In 2006, we published our report based on responses from 475 organizations in 125 countries, and this became the basis for the Alliance youth program which continues to the present day.

After the Decade, Mayor was frustrated by lack of financial support for the culture of peace work of his foundation. At one point, he flew me from the US to discuss this, but he was so frustrated that he spent our half-hour appointment on the telephone with someone else, and I went back to the States with no new project possible.

Had Mayor received the Nobel Peace Prize, as mentioned above, no doubt he would have received the financial support that was needed to further develop the culture of peace.

But we still live in an era when there is no financial support for peace, only for war. Will this ever change?

In his “History of the Culture of Peace“, Mayor leaves us with hope, like the inspiration that he had with Hans Krebs:

“And there lies our faith, because all living beings are predictable and measurable, with the sole exception of the human being. And the fact is that all of us have an exclusive and wonderful ability, which is the ability to create. For this reason, the human being is unpredictable and immeasurable, always capable of the unexpected. The human being is not predestined; he is free and the master of his own destiny. This is the great hope of humanity: in times of greatest tension and crisis, the humans are capable of bringing out the best of themselves.”

“Yes, peace is possible. It is possible to transform an economy of war into an economy of generalised development, in which investments are reduced in arms and increased in new sources of renewable energy; in the production of food and water; in health; in the protection of the environment; in eco-friendly housing; in electric transport; in education… The human race is capable of inventing its own future.”

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Final Report of the 2023 Biennale of Luanda, “Pan-African Forum for the Culture of Peace”

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

The Third edition of the Biennale of Luanda, “Pan-African Forum for the Culture of Peace” took place from 22 to 24 November 2023, as described briefly at the time in CPNN. The final report is now available, and we provide excerpts from its executive summary as follows:

The Biennale of Luanda, “Pan-African Forum for the Culture of Peace”, is a joint initiative of the Government of the Republic of Angola, UNESCO and the African Union that aims to promote conflict resolution and prevention of violence, encouraging cultural exchange and intergenerational dialogue in Africa. It is a broad platform for reflection and promotion of objectives, projects, visions, principles and values, which brings together Heads of States and Governments, young leaders, international organizations, financial institutions, private sector, civil society, scientific and artistic communities and sports, to address, disseminate ideas and inspire emblematic and sustainable individual and collective actions in favor of peace in Africa and the world. . . .


Vladmir Cuba, young representative of Guinea-Bissau, during the Intergenerational Dialogue

The third edition of the Biennale brought together a notable contingent of world leaders and representatives from different nations. Four Heads of State, three Vice Presidents, four former Heads of State and Advisors of the African Union, in addition to representatives from 23 countries, honored the event with their presence. The participation surpassed the mark of 2970 participants from several continents, including Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas. The opening ceremony presided over by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Angola, João Manuel Gonçalves Lourenço, and marked by the presence of His Excellency the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, and the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO, Mr. Xing Qu, consolidated the Biennale as a forum for global dialogue to build a culture of peace.

Key outcomes included the recognition of youth and women as key actors in peacebuilding efforts, the importance of technology and education in achieving gender equality, and the role of Africa’s cultural heritage in promoting cross-cultural understanding. The event emphasized the need for intergenerational dialogue, collaborative partnerships, and innovative financing practices to drive positive change. Recommendations focused on fostering intergenerational collaboration, amplifying the voices of youth and women, effective resource allocation, and strengthening partnerships to advance the goals of peace and sustainable development in Africa. . . . .

The Luanda Biennale’s success in convening diverse voices, promoting dialogue, and empowering the next generation of peacebuilders reflects its commitment to serving as a pivotal platform for fostering peace, unity, and prosperity in Africa. The event’s legacy lies in its ability to inspire, connect, and empower individuals to contribute to the continent’s transformation, leaving a lasting impact on the discourse on peace and sustainable development in Africa. The Biennale’s strategic alignment with global and African agendas underscores its significance in shaping a narrative of progress, collaboration, and unity for the African continent.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

The Luanda Biennale: What is its contribution to a culture of peace in Africa?

(Continued from left column)


Exhibition by the artists of the ResiliArt Project

The event program, in addition to six discussion panels and parallel activities, had as its highlight an intergenerational dialogue between African leaders and young people. This interaction, under the motto “Young people, actors in promoting the culture of peace and social transformations on the continent”, provided a rich space for exchanging experiences and innovative ideas, strengthening the role of young people in building a more peaceful and fair future for Africa.

The High-Level Panel offered young leaders the opportunity to learn from the experience of the older generation and present their innovative ideas to promote peace and social transformation. This intergenerational dialogue was fundamental to strengthening the involvement of young people in decision-making processes and building a more promising future for the continent.

The Second Panel highlighted the importance of technology and education in achieving gender equality. Participants recommended the development of an action plan in partnership with UNESCO, aiming to promote digital education, science and the culture of peace and non-violence from childhood.

The Third Panel, dedicated to the role of women in promoting peace, security and development, recommended empowering women in decision- making processes and expanding their participation in peacekeeping missions. The implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and UN Resolution 1325 was highlighted as fundamental to achieving these objectives.

The Fourth Panel addressed the need to transform education and financing systems in Africa. Recommendations included the adoption of innovative policies, investment in research and the establishment of intergenerational partnerships to support economic and social projects for social development and the maintenance of peace on the continent.

The Fifth Panel discussed the challenges and opportunities for economic growth on the African continent. Among the recommendations were the stimulation of entrepreneurship, the simplification of business creation processes, the promotion of commercial exchanges between member states of the African Union. But also, encourage the construction of communication, transport, energy and water infrastructures, from the perspective of shared resources.

The Sixth Panel addressed climate change and its impacts on Africa. Participants recommended the use of the Clean Development Mechanism to generate financial benefits for the continent and invest in projects that promote adaptation to climate change and the mitigation of its effects.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview to Tucker Carlson, Moscow, December 6, 2024

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

Excerpts from the transcript of video provided by Russian Ministry

Question [from Tucker Carlson]: Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?

Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries especially with the great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for the American history, for the American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.


video of interview

Question: But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is that some people call it hybrid war. I would call it hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without direct participation of the American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.

We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik  was taken seriously.

However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.

And this kind of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question.

It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation  in order to end the war which Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in the parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, the President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine being Russians, and their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation.

Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian, Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting canonic Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church. . . .

The Minsk agreements  were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government, which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done. . .
.
The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the Security Council. And putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.

Had the coup in February 2014 had it not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition implemented, Ukraine would have stayed one piece by now with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners. . . .

Question: I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide this long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call strategic defeat of Russia.

They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk, he bluntly, in his presence said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight.

So they fight for the regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources.

So the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.

We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine  says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement  by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative. . . .

Question: If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Is the media an arm of the culture of war?

(Continued from left column)

Sergey Lavrov: No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when ballistic missile launch is taking place.

As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and real dangerous.

Question: I think the system sounds very dangerous.

Sergey Lavrov: Well, it was a test launch, you know.

Question: Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.

Sergey Lavrov: No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.

In 2007, Putin started to explain to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth.

And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.

So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people. . . .

Question: So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for? . . . .

Sergey Lavrov: Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affaires on the 14th of June  he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.

The key principle is non-block status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine.

Question: But no NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted.

The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution  after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality.

And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way. . . .

Question: In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.
Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult?

Sergey Lavrov: There is nothing new, frankly. Because the U.S., historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water.

Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure – ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the U.S. can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back.

I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word – the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it.

When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored.

So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it.

It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo – unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.

And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.

You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety. . . . .

Question: What do you think of Donald Trump?

Sergey Lavrov: I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.

Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big.

We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Speech of Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, to the G20 Summit

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

Transcription from the Video of his speech (transcription by Vizard and translation by CPNN)

Thank you to President Lula and to Brazil for inviting me to this forum.

It is the second time that a Colombian president has been invited, President Santos first and now me.

I want to speak on behalf of a part of Colombian society that I hope will be the majority.

Hunger. If there is no hunger in the south, there is no migration from the south to the north.


Frame from video of speech

Any policy that seeks to put migrants in concentration camps, any programs that seek and hunt migrants to return them to their countries of origin, will fail.

It will fail, it has failed.

The only effective policy to stop the exodus of people from the south to the north is for the south to be more prosperous, to not be hungry. That is the effective policy. And I invite the members of the G20 to practice it with reason and truth, not with hypocrisy.

Every blow to a migrant abroad is simply the recognition of the inability of the rich North to end hunger in humanity.

Ending hunger in humanity requires, in my opinion, three approaches that I want to leave with you.

First is the reject the concept of food security based on countries that export food to the rest of the world based on an intensive use of oil and coal. This has not ended hunger in the world.

Second, I propose to build, instead of the concept of a free world market for food security, the concept of food sovereignty, which consists of being able to produce enough food in countries where there is hunger. That requires a carbon-free agriculture based on the peasantry and the small farmer, not on the large agrarian multinational.

It is the peasantry and the small farmer of each country who should till the land and fulfill its social function as the primary means to feed their own people and the world.

We call this agrarian reform: that the peasantry of the world and the small farmers should have greater power as citizens, with full political and economic rights, as a basic guarantee for a decarbonized agriculture that feeds all citizens, all people in humanity.

Third, I would like to see this meeting go deeper into the topic of artificial intelligence. If artificial intelligence, which is going to expand exponentially, is fed by fossil fuels, oil and coal, it will interact with the climate crisis, deepening it. The climate crisis and artificial intelligence both have enormous potential to increase hunger in the world. Artificial intelligence can put hundreds of millions of workers out of work, and they will go hungry. Hunger in the world will increase if we are not able to at least set two objectives.

The first objective, contrary to someone who spoke here from Latin America, is to create a global public policy regulation of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is the accumulated intellect of humanity in the digital cloud. Its privatisation can substantially increase hunger and, as Hawking has said, both with the climate crisis and with artificial intelligence, we have come to the edge of human extinction.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original speech in Spanish.)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Only global political regulation, true multilateralism, can overcome the immense danger it represents and put artificial intelligence at the service of human beings and not the other way around.

And a second objective to avoid throwing hundreds of millions of workers into the streets, increasing the exodus and increasing hunger, is a concept conceived in Brazil by sociologists who are now called dishonest, but who are profound thinkers on human problems. The concept is a universal citizen income.

Universal citizen income provides the possibility of ending hunger in the world. It demands that the millions of unemployed workers have something to eat. It leads us to demand a restructuring of international finances that is absolutely essential to overcome the climate crisis being discussed in Azerbaijan today, and to overcome hunger in the world.

I will end with some statements that I want to leave on behalf of a part of Colombian society.

First, the G20 must oppose the genocide in Gaza and call it what it is, without hypocrisy, genocide. If the G20, the powerful of the world, do not oppose genocide, humanity has no future.

Two, all kinds of economic blockades against any people in the world must cease, no matter the regime, because the blockade is a comprehensive and systematic violation of human rights, not of governments, but of human beings.

Three, regarding the war between Ukraine and Russia, I oppose the decision to permit the launch of missiles at Russia. There is no other solution than direct dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. Any peace talks that exclude one of the two peoples are only a war conference, not a peace conference. It is the Slavic peoples who must solve their problems and therefore the Russia-Ukraine dialogue must begin in order to achieve peace. Hopefully, it will take place on the basis of the precepts of the Munich agreement that Europe has forgotten.

Finally, I agree with the approach of the Republic of China on building a dialogue between civilizations. The new multilateral dialogue is not an imposition of some over others, but rather a global planetary democracy, and that implies, given human diversity, the recognition of this diversity and the construction of a dialogue between civilizations and not a confrontation, as Huntington said in the United States. I do not believe, and I have to say it here publicly, in something in that regard that was expressed at this conference.

I am a progressive, a radical democrat and a socialist. And I believe and am proud of it.

It is common struggle and human solidarity that has kept us alive on this planet since day one when we got together to hunt animals to eat, when we got together to make a bonfire to warm ourselves on cold nights.

We are not a society of individual atoms competing with each other. That is not the case even for the least intelligent animals.

We can only survive on this planet, overcome hunger, disease, inequality, overcome war, overcome the climate crisis, which is the main problem we face today, and put artificial intelligence to our service, if we help each other, if we are supportive, if we are a community, if we have common objectives, if we have common purposes and if we help each other.

Competition between human beings and nations has only brought us to the brink of extinction.

The possibility of building a diverse civilization of humanity, even beyond this planet, taking care of this planet, depends on us helping each other, on us being supportive, and on us embracing the fact that the human species is a community.

Thank you, again, President Lula, for your very kind invitation.
– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Brazil: President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit And Handover Of The Presidency To South Africa

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article from the G20

President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit (official English translation).

Today, Brazil completes the penultimate stage of a four-year sequence in which developing countries have occupied the leadership of the G20.

Indonesia, India, Brazil, and, now, South Africa bring to the table perspectives that are of interest to the vast majority of the world’s population.

Starting in Bali, passing through New Delhi, and arriving in Rio de Janeiro, we strive to promote measures that have a concrete impact on people’s lives.


Video of speech with English interpretation

We launched a Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and began an unprecedented debate on taxing the super-rich.

We put climate change on the agendas of Finance Ministries and central banks and approved the first multilateral document on the bioeconomy.

We issued a Call to Action for reforms that make global governance more effective and representative, and we engage in dialogue with society through the G20 Social.

We launched a roadmap to make multilateral development banks better, bigger, and more effective and gave African countries a voice in the debt debate.

We established the Women’s Empowerment Working Group and proposed an eighteenth Sustainable Development Goal to promote racial equality.

We defined key trade and sustainable development principles and committed to tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030.

We created a Coalition for Local and Regional Production of Vaccines and Medicines and decided to expand financing for water and sanitation infrastructure.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original speech in Portuguese.)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

We welcome events from the World Health Organization’s Investment Round, believing that more resources are needed to collectively respond to new and persistent health challenges.

We approved a Strategy to Promote Cooperation in Open Innovation and address asymmetries in scientific and technological production. We also decided to establish a task force on the governance of artificial intelligence at the G20.

This year, we held more than 140 meetings across 15 Brazilian cities.

We once again adopted consensus statements in almost all working groups.

We left a lesson: that the greater the interaction between the Sherpa and Finance tracks, the greater and more significant the results of our work will be.

We worked hard, even though we knew we had only scratched the surface of the world’s profound challenges.

After the South African presidency, all G20 countries will have exercised group leadership at least once.

This will be an opportune moment to evaluate the role we have played so far and how we should act from now on.

We have a responsibility to do better.

It is with this hope that I pass the gavel of the G20 presidency to President Ramaphosa.

This is not an ordinary handover of the presidency — it is the concrete expression of the historical, economic, social, and cultural ties that unite Latin America and Africa.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the Brazilian presidency, especially those who worked to make our achievements possible.

I wish our comrade Ramaphosa every success in leading the G20. South Africa can count on Brazil to exercise a presidency surpassing our achievements.

I remember the words of another great South African, Nelson Mandela, who said: it is easy to demolish and destroy; the heroes are those who build.

Let us continue building a just world and a sustainable planet.

Thank you very much.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

World Future Policy Award 2024: Peace & Future Generations

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

A press release from the World Future Council

The World Future Policy Award celebrates top policy solutions for current and future generations. We raise global awareness of exemplary laws and policies, accelerating policy action towards a common future where every person lives in dignity on a healthy, sustainable planet. As the world’s premier policy prize, we showcase inspiring and effective policies, not individuals, on the international stage. Each year, we focus on one topic where progress is particularly urgent and receive nominations from across the globe. This year’s topic is Peace and Future Generations.

Enduring peace is perhaps the most critical component for the sustainable development of societies and the protection of both people and the planet. Our global community is in desperate need of creative and inclusive policy solutions at all levels to resolve conflict, prevent war, and foster a culture of peace.
The good news is, these policies exist!

From 47 nominations spanning 29 countries, our esteemed panel of international experts selected four Winning Policies, one Vision Award, and three Honourable Mentions. The winners were celebrated at the Award Ceremony at the Maison de la Paix in Geneva (November 27).

AND THE 2024 WINNERS ARE…

KAUSWAGAN’S “FROM ARMS TO FARMS” PROGRAMME (PHILIPPINES) (2010)


Launched in 2010 in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, Philippines, the “From Arms to Farms” programme has reintegrated over 5,000 former combatants into society through sustainable agriculture. Under the leadership of Mayor Rommel C. Arnado, the initiative addresses poverty, distrust in governance, and historical inequalities, transforming the municipality into a model of peace and sustainable development. By reducing poverty rates from 80% in 2010 to 9.1% by 2020 and fostering peace between Christian and Muslim communities, the programme demonstrates how innovative, integrated solutions can drive lasting change.

Participants receive training in organic farming and financial literacy, equipping them to build stable livelihoods. Community dialogues and conflict resolution foster reconciliation, while bi-weekly meetings with local leaders ensure transparency and inclusivity. Over 6,000 hectares of land have been cultivated, significantly enhancing food security and revitalising the local economy. All 13 of Kauswagan’s villages are now 100% organic. Since 2012, no armed conflict-related crimes have been reported.

Read more

Watch video

WELL-BEING OF FUTURE GENERATIONS (WALES) ACT 2015


The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is a landmark policy designed to promote sustainable development across all public bodies in Wales. Its core aim is to enhance the economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being of Wales, ensuring that present decisions do not compromise future generations. The Act mandates legal accountability for public bodies and prioritises community engagement at all levels, fostering economic resilience, environmental preservation, and social cohesion.

The Future Generations Commissioner supports these goals by encouraging long-term thinking and monitoring public bodies’ progress in meeting their well-being goals. This holistic system positions Wales at the forefront of sustainability efforts in line with global objectives. Highlighting such pioneering policies that protect the rights of future generations is both timely and essential.

Read more

Watch video

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

THE MORIORI PEACE COVENANT (NUNUKU’S LAW) (15TH CENTURY – ONGOING, RĒKOHU, NEW ZEALAND)


The Moriori Peace Covenant (Nunuku’s Law) is an extraordinary example of a long-standing commitment to peace, non-violence, and future generations. Established in the 15th century, it prohibits violence among the indigenous Moriori of Rēkohu (Chatham Islands, New Zealand). Despite facing immense aggression and oppression from Māori tribes Ngāti, Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, and later discrimination from European settlers, the Moriori upheld their commitment to non-violence.

Though this led to tragic losses, the Covenant became a powerful symbol of resilience and integrity. Recognised globally, Nunuku’s Law has influenced modern peace efforts and contributed to Moriori cultural revival, making it a model for intergenerational peacebuilding and sustainability. Despite influencing renowned non-violent leaders like Te Whiti, Tohu, and Mahatma Gandhi, the Covenant remains relatively unknown both in New Zealand and globally – a situation that calls for greater recognition.

Read more

Watch video

CANADA’S FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE POLICY (2017)

Since 2017, Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) has placed gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls at the heart of its international development strategy. Recognising that inclusive societies are more peaceful and prosperous, FIAP addresses systemic inequalities by promoting women’s leadership, enhancing access to education and healthcare, and fostering inclusive economic growth. Developed through consultations with over 15,000 participants across 65 countries, FIAP demonstrates Canada’s commitment to implementing UNSCR 1325 and advancing gender equality in peacebuilding and sustainable development.

FIAP’s feminist framework includes marginalised women and girls while engaging men and boys to challenge harmful gender norms. It prioritises innovation and partnerships, invests in research, fosters cross-sector collaboration, and supports communities in adapting to climate change by empowering women in agriculture and environmental decision-making.

Read more

Watch video

VISION AWARD 2024

A Vision Award policy has strong design and objectives, showing considerable potential for transformative impact, though it may lack proven implementation due to being relatively new or facing challenging circumstances.

THE NIGERIA NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON YOUTH PEACE AND SECURITY (2021)

The Nigerian National Action Plan on Youth, Peace, and Security (NNAPYPS) was developed in response to UN Security Council Resolution 2250, making Nigeria the first African country and second globally to adopt such a policy.

It seeks to engage youth in peacebuilding and conflict prevention, focusing on vulnerabilities like unemployment and empowering young people as peacebuilders. Despite contextual challenges, NNAPYPS shows great potential and has already improved youth engagement and representation, with incremental replication at the state level.
Emerging from a youth-driven grassroots movement, NNAPYPS is a significant achievement in peacebuilding, though still in its early stages, with the pilot phase nearing completion.

Watch video

EXPLORE THE 2024 AWARD BROCHURE!

Learn more about our winners, our honourable mentions, & the 2024 Award in our official brochure.

English, German, Spanish, French

Press Kit

Watch all out Winner Videos here.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

President Claudia Sheinbaum at the G20: Mexico’s Role on the Global Stage

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article by Pablo Guillén & Emilio Dorantes Galeana for the Wilson Center (abridged)

The 2024 G20 Rio de Janeiro summit is the nineteenth meeting of the Group of Twenty (G20), a Heads of State and Government meeting taking place in Rio de Janeiro from 18–19 November 2024.  

Sheinbaum speaking to the G20

The G20 is an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 sovereign countries, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU). The group works to address major issues related to the global economy, such as international financial stability, climate change mitigation and sustainable development, through annual meetings of Heads of State and Heads of Government. 

The 19 official member countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and United States. Although there are also guest countries in every meeting.   . . .

This is President Sheinbaum’s first international appearance since taking office in October. Her participation in the G20 summit represents Mexico’s reengagement with major international forums after years of withdrawal under former President López Obrador. Sheinbaum criticized the rise in global military spending and advocated for increased investment in reforestation programs. She argued that allocating just 1% of global military spending to reforestation programs could significantly impact poverty, migration, and climate change mitigation. 

“What is happening in our world when, in just two years, spending on weapons has grown almost three times as much as the world economy? How is it that the economy of destruction has reached an expenditure of more than $2.4 trillion? How is it that 700 million people in the world still live below the poverty line?” Sheinbaum began her participation with these questions, to give way to the general philosophy of her proposal: “I come on behalf of a generous, supportive and wise people to call on the great nations to build and not to destroy. To forge peace, fraternity and equality. Call us idealists, but I prefer that to being conformists.” 

“I belong to a generation that fought against repression, authoritarianism, for social justice and democracy, and I come from a great people who decided to establish, through peaceful means, a new history for my country,” she said. “Since our political project began in 2018, Mexico has been building a new course […]. The dogma of neoliberal faith, that the market resolves everything, has been left behind.”  

Sheinbaum repeated one of the major slogans of her predecessor López Obrador: “For the good of all, the poor first.” Furthermore, Sheinbaum highlighted the success of the Sembrando Vida program, which was presented by the Mexican government to the United States as a tool to mitigate migratory flows. “We allocate $1.7 billion each year to support 439,000 families in Mexico, and 40,000 in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. In six years, more than one million hectares have been reforested, with the planting of 1.1 billion trees.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

The idea includes a global commitment to the summit’s goals. “With this, we would help mitigate global warming and restore the social fabric by helping communities get out of poverty. The proposal is to stop sowing wars and instead sow peace and sow life.” 

Key Highlights of Mexico´s Proposal: 

° Ambitious Scale: The initiative would reforest 15 million hectares an area four times the size of Denmark or equivalent to all of Guatemala, Belize, and El Salvador combined. 

° Job Creation: It aims to employ 6 million tree planters, offering livelihoods to vulnerable communities while combating environmental degradation. 

° Inspiration: Sheinbaum cited Mexico’s Sembrando Vida program as a proven model, which supports rural families with wages and technical training, resulting in the planting of over 1 billion trees and the capture of 30 million tons of CO₂ annually. 

Private dialogues and meetings 

President Sheinbaum held private dialogues with the representatives of France, Vietnam, Colombia, China, Canada and the United States. Likewise, she held a group meeting with representatives from Chile, Colombia and Brazil.  

° Emmanuel Macron (France): Both presidents agreed to cooperate on key issues, including water management, healthcare, and infrastructure development. They also committed to jointly promoting gender equality, emphasizing its importance as a global priority.  

° Pham Minh Chinh (Vietnam): Both leaders agreed to strengthen cultural ties between Mexico and Vietnam.  

° Gustavo Preto (Colombia): Both presidents highlighted the strength of the relationship between Mexico and Colombia, based on cooperation, trade and the deep cultural ties that unite both countries. 

° Xi Jinping (China): Both leaders discussed Mexico and China´s relationship and the investment space that the Asian country has, considering the trade agreement (USMCA) that Mexico has with North America. Moreover, Sheinbaum expressed gratitude for China’s support in aiding Acapulco’s recovery after the devastating hurricane it faced.  

° Justin Trudeau (Canada): Both leaderscelebrated the strong relationship between their peoples and governments. They also acknowledged the importance and positive impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on the region.

° Joe Biden (United States): Both presidents discussed key bilateral issues. According to a statement from the White House, the two leaders emphasized the need to maintain cooperation on migration, security, and combating transnational criminal violence. They also addressed economic matters, stating the strength of the US-Mexico bilateral partnership as a key element for mutual progress. Also at the meeting, President Sheinbaum asked President Biden for information on the capture of drug-lord Jesus “El Mayo” Zambada.

° Lula da Silva (Brazil), Gustavo Petro (Colombia) and Gabriel Boric (Chile): In the joint meeting the four presidents agreed on the importance of working together as the Latin-American progressive governments and spoke of the importance of maintaining such relationships. 

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.