Category Archives: FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Leaks Reveal Reality behind U.S. Propaganda in Ukraine

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies in TRANSCEND Media Service

The U.S. corporate media’s first response to the leaking of secret documents about the war in Ukraine was to throw some mud in the water, declare “nothing to see here,” and cover it as a depoliticized crime story about a 21-year-old Air National Guardsman who published secret documents to impress his friends. President Biden dismissed the leaks as revealing nothing of “great consequence.”


Leaked document predicts a “protracted war beyond 2023.” Image credit: Newsweek

What these documents reveal, however, is that the war is going worse for Ukraine than our political leaders have admitted to us, while going badly for Russia too, so that neither side is likely to break the stalemate this year, and this will lead to “a protracted war beyond 2023,” as one of the documents says.

The publication of these assessments should lead to renewed calls for our government to level with the public about what it realistically hopes to achieve by prolonging the bloodshed, and why it continues to reject the resumption of the promising peace negotiations it blocked in April 2022.

We believe that blocking those talks was a dreadful mistake, in which the Biden administration capitulated to the warmongering, since-disgraced U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and that current U.S. policy is compounding that mistake at the cost of tens of thousands more Ukrainian lives and the destruction of even more of their country.

In most wars, while the warring parties strenuously suppress the reporting of civilian casualties for which they are responsible, professional militaries generally treat accurate reporting of their own military casualties as a basic responsibility. But in the virulent propaganda surrounding the war in Ukraine, all sides have treated military casualty figures as fair game, systematically exaggerating enemy casualties and understating their own.

Publicly available U.S. estimates have supported the idea that many more Russians are being killed than Ukrainians, deliberately skewing public perceptions to support the notion that Ukraine can somehow win the war, as long as we just keep sending more weapons.

The leaked documents provide internal U.S. military intelligence assessments of casualties on both sides. But different documents, and different copies of the documents circulating online, show conflicting numbers, so the propaganda war rages on despite the leak.

The most detailed assessment of attrition rates of troops says explicitly that U.S. military intelligence has “low confidence” in the attrition rates it cites. It attributes that partly to “potential bias” in Ukraine’s information sharing, and notes that casualty assessments “fluctuate according to the source.”

So, despite denials by the Pentagon, a document that shows a higher death toll on the Ukrainian side may be correct, since it has been widely reported that Russia has been firing several times the number of artillery shells as Ukraine, in a bloody war of attrition in which artillery appears to be the main instrument of death. Altogether, some of the documents estimate a total death toll on both sides approaching 100,000 and total casualties, killed and wounded, of up to 350,000.

Another document reveals that, after using up the stocks sent by NATO countries, Ukraine is running out of missiles for the S-300 and BUK systems that make up 89% of its air defenses. By May or June, Ukraine will therefore be vulnerable, for the first time, to the full strength of the Russian air force, which has until now been limited mainly to long-range missile strikes and drone attacks.

Recent Western arms shipments have been justified to the public by predictions that Ukraine will soon be able to launch new counter-offensives to take back territory from Russia. Twelve brigades, or up to 60,000 troops, were assembled to train on newly delivered Western tanks for this “spring offensive,” with three brigades in Ukraine and nine more in Poland, Romania and Slovenia.

But a leaked document from the end of February reveals that the nine brigades being equipped and trained abroad had less than half their equipment and, on average, were only 15% trained. Meanwhile, Ukraine faced a stark choice to either send reinforcements to Bakhmut or withdraw from the town entirely, and it chose to sacrifice some of its “spring offensive” forces to prevent the imminent fall of Bakhmut.

Ever since the U.S. and NATO started training Ukrainian forces to fight in Donbas in 2015, and while it has been training them in other countries since the Russian invasion, NATO has provided six-month training courses to bring Ukraine’s forces up to basic NATO standards. On this basis, it appears that many of the forces being assembled for the “spring offensive” would not be fully trained and equipped before July or August.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

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

(Article continued from the column on the left)

But another document says the offensive will begin around April 30th, meaning that many troops may be thrown into combat less than fully trained, by NATO standards, even as they have to contend with more severe shortages of ammunition and a whole new scale of Russian airstrikes. The incredibly bloody fighting that has already decimated Ukrainian forces will surely be even more brutal than before.

The leaked documents conclude that “enduring Ukrainian deficiencies in training and munitions supplies probably will strain progress and exacerbate casualties during the offensive,” and that the most likely outcome remains only modest territorial gains.

The documents also reveal serious deficiencies on the Russian side, deficiencies revealed by the failure of their winter offensive to take much ground. The fighting in Bakhmut has raged on for months, leaving thousands of fallen soldiers on both sides and a burned out city still not 100% controlled by Russia.

The inability of either side to decisively defeat the other in the ruins of Bakhmut and other front-line towns in Donbas is why one of the most important documents predicted that the war was locked in a “grinding campaign of attrition” and was “likely heading toward a stalemate.”

Adding to the concerns about where this conflict is headed is the revelation in the leaked documents about the presence of 97 special forces from NATO countries, including from the U.K. and the U.S. This is in addition to previous reports about the presence of CIA personnel, trainers and Pentagon contractors, and the unexplained deployment of 20,000 troops from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Brigades near the border between Poland and Ukraine.

Worried about the ever-increasing direct U.S. military involvement, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz has introduced a Privileged Resolution of Inquiry to force President Biden to notify the House of the exact number of U.S. military personnel inside Ukraine and precise U.S. plans to assist Ukraine militarily.

We can’t help wondering what President Biden’s plan could be, or if he even has one. But it turns out that we’re not alone. In what amounts to a second leak that the corporate media have studiously ignored, U.S. intelligence sources have told veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that they are asking the same questions, and they describe a “total breakdown” between the White House and the U.S. intelligence community.

Hersh’s sources describe a pattern that echoes the use of fabricated and unvetted intelligence to justify U.S. aggression against Iraq in 2003, in which Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan are by-passing regular intelligence analysis and procedures and running the Ukraine War as their own private fiefdom. They reportedly smear all criticism of President Zelenskyy as “pro-Putin,” and leave U.S. intelligence agencies out in the cold trying to understand a policy that makes no sense to them.

What U.S. intelligence officials know, but the White House is doggedly ignoring, is that, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, top Ukrainian officials running this endemically corrupt country are making fortunes skimming money from the over $100 billion in aid and weapons that America has sent them.

According to went to Kyiv to meet with him. Burns allegedly told Zelenskyy he was taking too much of the “skim money,” and handed him a list of 35 generals and senior officials the CIA knew were involved in this corrupt scheme.

Zelenskyy fired about ten of those officials, but failed to alter his own behavior. Hersh’s sources tell him that the White House’s lack of interest in doing anything about these goings-on is a major factor in the breakdown of trust between the White House and the intelligence community.

First-hand reporting from inside Ukraine by New Cold War has described the same systematic pyramid of corruption as Hersh. A member of parliament, formerly in Zelenskyy’s party, told New Cold War that Zelenskyy and other officials skimmed 170 million euros from money that was supposed to pay for Bulgarian artillery shells.

The corruption reportedly extends to bribes to avoid conscription. The Open Ukraine Telegram channel was told by a military recruitment office that it could get the son of one of its writers released from the front line in Bakhmut and sent out of the country for $32,000.

As has happened in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the wars the United States has been involved in for many decades, the longer the war goes on, the more the web of corruption, lies and distortions unravels.

The torpedoing of peace talks, the Nord Stream sabotage, the hiding of corruption, the politicization of casualty figures, and the suppressed history of broken promises and prescient warnings about the danger of NATO expansion are all examples of how our leaders have distorted the truth to shore up U.S. public support for perpetuating an unwinnable war that is killing a generation of young Ukrainians.

These leaks and investigative reports are not the first, nor will they be the last, to shine a light through the veil of propaganda that permits these wars to destroy young people’s lives in faraway places, so that oligarchs in Russia, Ukraine and the United States can amass wealth and power.

The only way this will stop is if more and more people get active in opposing those companies and individuals that profit from war–who Pope Francis calls the Merchants of Death–and boot out the politicians who do their bidding, before they make an even more fatal misstep and start a nuclear war.

FARC dissident group says to start peace talks with Colombian government in May

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION . .

An article by Julia Symmes Cobb published by Reuters

Dissident FARC rebels who rejected a landmark peace agreement in 2016 said on Sunday (April 16) they are ready to set up a dialogue with the government on May 16 to begin peace talks to bring their group, the Estado Mayor Central (EMC), out of the armed conflict.


Nestor Gregorio Vera Fernandez, alias Ivan Mordisco, head of the Central General Staff of the FARC dissidents, attends a meeting with peasant communities in Yari, Colombia April 16, 2023. REUTERS/Mario Quintero

Leftist President Gustavo Petro – a former member of the urban guerrilla group M-19 – pledged to end six decades of an armed conflict that has left more than 450,000 dead by signing peace or surrender agreements with rebels and criminal gangs, in addition to fully implementing the pact with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The EMC is one of two breakaway factions of the FARC and is made up of former leaders and fighters who did not accept the peace deal, which allowed in 2016 the reincorporation into civilian life of 13,000 people who formed a political party and received 10 seats in Congress.

(continued on right column)

Questions related to this article:

What is happening in Colombia, Is peace possible?

(continued from left column)

“We announce before the whole world that our delegates to the dialogue table with the Colombian state, headed by the national government, are already ready for May 16 of this year,” Ángela Izquierdo, spokeswoman for the armed group, told journalists.

There were no immediate comments from government officials.

Attorney General Francisco Barbosa suspended arrest warrants against more than 20 EMC members in early March, which facilitated the start of peace talks to be held in the Llano del Yari, on the border between the departments of Meta and Caqueta, in the south of the country.

The group, made up of 3,530 people – 2,180 combatants and 1,350 auxiliaries – has maintained a bilateral ceasefire with the Colombian government since the beginning of the year.

The other dissident FARC faction is the Segunda Marquetalia, which in August 2019 returned to the armed struggle, claiming that the state failed to comply with the peace agreement.

Petro’s government reestablished peace talks with the rebels of the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the two parties seek to advance towards a bilateral ceasefire agreement in a third round of talks to begin soon in Cuba.

United Nations International Year of Dialogue as a Guarantee of Peace, 2023 

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

On 27 January 2023, the official launch ceremony of 2023 as the International Year of Dialogue as a Guarantee of Peace took place at the Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat. This official ceremony brought together over 200 representatives from the UN Member States, UN sister agencies including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Regional Office for Central Asia, relevant international and regional organizations, and civil society in person and online.

The year 2023 was declared as the International Year of Dialogue as a Guarantee of Peace, according to the resolution 77/32 of the United Nations General Assembly at the initiative of Turkmenistan.

This resolution was adopted by consensus and was co-sponsored by 68 member countries of the Organization, including all countries of Central Asia.

Turkmenistan underlines that the initiative directly correlates with the António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General’s “New Agenda for Peace”, which includes reducing global strategic risks, investing in conflict prevention and peacemaking, and supporting regional preventive measures.

Question for this article:

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

Vepa Hajiyev, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan in his opening remarks noted: “Today we are starting a joint results-oriented work to create conditions for improving and developing international relations, restore trust in the world politics, and establish a respectful dialogue. Currently, these principles and goals are particularly relevant against the background of the existing systemic problems of international relations. In this context, we see a common task in turning the International Year of Dialogue as a Guarantee of Peace into a powerful constructive process designed to provide an incentive for dialogue, cooperation, and mutual understanding”.

Ashita Mittal, UNODC Regional Representative for Central Asia in her speech emphasized: “While the World, and the region, in particular face the triple crisis of conflicts, climate change and COVID, magnifying the impact of the world drug problem, organized crime and terrorism, and deepening vulnerabilities and desperation, we in Central Asia need to join our efforts to strengthen peace, stability, and security in the region, especially through negotiations and dialogue.”

During the event, UN sister agencies, national and international participants presented their initiatives and proposals to observe the International Year of Dialogue as a Guarantee of Peace, shared information on activities aimed at implementation of the International Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace.

“The promotion of the international partnership, which is the basis of the UN Charter and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, is fundamental in preserving peace and security, supporting, developing and ensuring human rights. That’s why the adopted Resolution of the UN General Assembly, which calls for the development of dialogue as a valuable tool for resolving and preventing conflicts, alleviating tensions and settling disputes, is of particular value to us,”- highlighted Dmitry Shlapacheko, UN Resident Coordinator in Turkmenistan in his speech.

Following the official launch ceremony, the high-level participants adopted a Roadmap for the International Year of Dialogue as a Guarantee of Peace.

Chinese proposal of principles for a peace settlement of the Ukraine War and reactions around the world

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

A press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China

(Editor’s note: Here is the proposal of principles for a peace settlement of the Ukraine War as published by the Chinese government, presented by the Chinese President Xi to Russian President Putin during his recent visit, and scheduled to be presented virtually by him to Ukraine President Zelensky. While it lists the principles needed, it does not consider whether Russia must give back some of the territories it has seized during the war.)

China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis
2023-02-24 09:00

1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries. Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected. 

2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.

3. Ceasing hostilities. Conflict and war benefit no one. All parties must stay rational and exercise restraint, avoid fanning the flames and aggravating tensions, and prevent the crisis from deteriorating further or even spiraling out of control. All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive ceasefire. 

4. Resuming peace talks. Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. All efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be encouraged and supported. The international community should stay committed to the right approach of promoting talks for peace, help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as soon as possible, and create conditions and platforms for the resumption of negotiation. China will continue to play a constructive role in this regard. 

5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis. All measures conducive to easing the humanitarian crisis must be encouraged and supported. Humanitarian operations should follow the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and humanitarian issues should not be politicized. The safety of civilians must be effectively protected, and humanitarian corridors should be set up for the evacuation of civilians from conflict zones. Efforts are needed to increase humanitarian assistance to relevant areas, improve humanitarian conditions, and provide rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis on a larger scale. The UN should be supported in playing a coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid to conflict zones.

6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs). Parties to the conflict should strictly abide by international humanitarian law, avoid attacking civilians or civilian facilities, protect women, children and other victims of the conflict, and respect the basic rights of POWs. China supports the exchange of POWs between Russia and Ukraine, and calls on all parties to create more favorable conditions for this purpose.

7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe. China opposes armed attacks against nuclear power plants or other peaceful nuclear facilities, and calls on all parties to comply with international law including the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) and resolutely avoid man-made nuclear accidents. China supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in playing a constructive role in promoting the safety and security of peaceful nuclear facilities.

8. Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided. China opposes the research, development and use of chemical and biological weapons by any country under any circumstances.

9. Facilitating grain exports. All parties need to implement the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed by Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the UN fully and effectively in a balanced manner, and support the UN in playing an important role in this regard. The cooperation initiative on global food security proposed by China provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis.

10. Stopping unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure cannot solve the issue; they only create new problems. China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies and better the lives of their people.

11. Keeping industrial and supply chains stable. All parties should earnestly maintain the existing world economic system and oppose using the world economy as a tool or weapon for political purposes. Joint efforts are needed to mitigate the spillovers of the crisis and prevent it from disrupting international cooperation in energy, finance, food trade and transportation and undermining the global economic recovery.

12. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction. The international community needs to take measures to support post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones. China stands ready to provide assistance and play a constructive role in this endeavor.

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

Does China promote a culture of peace?

Reactions around the world

As expected and widely reported, the Chinese proposal was welcomed by Russia and Belarus and rejected by the United States and its NATO allies.

But what about the rest of the world.

The proposal was officially welcomed and supported by President Orban of Hungary and by the Minister of International Relations of South Africa. The support by Hungary was reported as headline news in Cuba and Niger. The South African support was echoed in columns published by the South African news sites Business Live and SABC news.

Writing from Brazzaville, Congo, the journal Adiac reported the remarks of the Chinese ambassador to that country by headlining “China offers ways out of the crisis in Ukraine.”

Many media around the world criticised the fact that the Chinese proposal failed to demand the return of regions seized by Russia, including Arab News published in Saudi Arabia, Jornada of Mexico and Utusan Malaya .

On the other hand, the Mexican commentator Javier Jiménez Olmos welcomed the proposal, saying that the return of regions seized by Russia is implied by the proposal’s recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty and its territorial integrity.

Other media simply said that the plan has no chance of success unless the Americans and NATO change their opposition, for example the Emirates Center for Policies and commentator Jamil Matar from Egypt.

In this regard, the editorial of the Business Standard of Bangladesh said that the American refusal shows that “America is losing influence and prestige globally” and Ahmed Al-Hiyari, writing from Jordan, said, All the items that China put forward in its paper have already been adopted by the Americans and Europeans through their positions towards the war in Ukraine, whether it is respect for the sovereignty of all countries and that all countries are equal, regardless of their size, strength or wealth, or abandoning the imposition of unilateral sanctions and renouncing the Cold War mentality, and stopping Fighting and conflict. . . . Nevertheless, the Americans and Europeans hastened to say that it did not amount to a plan, and at another time by questioning it. . . .The red line is that China is forbidden to succeed in Ukraine.

The Libyan media Tawasul headlined the remarks by the deputy spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General, Farhan Haq, who said: “It is too early for the international organization to evaluate the Chinese peace proposal to end the war in Ukraine. We will need more details on the proposal in the first place.”

Some voices were more critical of the Chinese proposal.

Writing from India, Ranjit Kumar of the Navbgarat Times said that “The 12-point proposal put forward by China is heavily tilted in favor of Russia. . . Ukraine cannot accept China’s peace offer because the Russian army’s advance will turn into the Russia-Ukraine border if the ceasefire comes into force.

And writing from Indonesia, the news agency Inilah quotes the India-based EurAsian Times that the Chinese plan contradicts their own policy towards Taiwan, since the Chinese do not respect their sovereignty and have imposed sanctions against them.

Mexico: 175 organizations and groups convene a National Peace Conference

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from Artículo 9 (Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 2.5)

Mexico City March 15, 2023.- Counteracting the different types of violence that the country is experiencing, 175 organizations and groups are convening a National Peace Conference. We believe that fighting against the causes of violence is a shared responsibility: as long as it continues to be believed that it should only be the task of the government, there will be no peace. It is urgent to stop the violence, all of it, at all levels of our lives.

We see with concern that, despite all the attacks that accumulate day by day, we do not yet have a national consensus to build a culture of peace from all possible fronts. Instead, we observe that the various forms of violence are being used more and more to deepen the differences that are separating us. If we do nothing, the year 2024 could be even worse.

That is why we have decided to convene a National Peace Conference, bringing together all the voices and all the groups that have experienced violence firsthand, as well as those of us who have dedicated a fundamental part of our lives to building a culture of peace.

We want to talk to each other, listen to each other, understand each other, support each other. We want to imagine and build all possible safeguards to face violence and find all the paths to peace.

(Click here for the original article in Spanish.)

Questions related to this article:

Is there progress towards a culture of peace in Mexico?

The Conference will take place at the Museum of Memory and Tolerance in Mexico City on March 22, 23 and 24, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

We will listen to and share the proposals of people and groups that have experienced violence and those who are threatened by different forms of violence. The first day we will talk about femicides, forced disappearance, violence against girls, boys and adolescents, indigenous peoples, day laborers, migrants and defenders of the territory. The second day, of the groups that live under different modalities of threat, such as journalists, patients without medication, the LGTBQ+ community, academics and students, sex workers, domestic workers, delivery men, as well as people in social reintegration, homeless and consumers. of drugs. During the third day we will listen to the organizations that have worked in defense of these groups and in the construction of peace.

The Peace Conference will also be broadcast on March 22, 23 and 24 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. live on Facebook Live at @NosotrxsMX and on YouTube at Nosotrxs Movimiento.

More information and list of convening organizations here

We would love for you to join the number of convening organizations! If you are interested in joining your organization, please fill out the following form.

Promoting Organizations

Acción Ciudadana Frente a la Pobreza 
Artículo 19
EDUCA-Oaxaca
Fondo Semillas
Fundación Friedrich Ebert
IBERO- Ciudad de México
Incide Social
MUCD
Nosotrxs
RENACE San Luis Potosí
Revista Proceso
Red VIRAL
World Justice Project

The Global South refuses pressure to side with the West on Russia

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by  by Vijay Prashad in Peoples Dispatch

Europe and the US ignore Africa, Latin America, and Asia’s calls to find a solution that ends the war in Ukraine—and, as Namibia’s prime minister put it, redirect funds spent on weapons toward solving global issues.


Francia Márquez Vice President, Republic of Colombia speaking at the Munich Security Conference next to Namibia’s Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila, Enrique Manalo (Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines) and Mauro Luiz Iecker Vieira (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Federative Republic of Brazil). Photo: MSC/Baier

At the G20 meeting in Bengaluru, India, the United States arrived with a simple brief. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at the February 2023 summit that the G20 countries must condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and they must adhere to US sanctions against Russia. However, it became clear that India, the chair of the G20, was not willing to conform to the US agenda. Indian officials said that the G20 is not a political meeting, but a meeting to discuss economic issues. They contested the use of the word “war” to describe the invasion, preferring to describe it as a “crisis” and a “challenge.” France  and Germany  have rejected this draft if it does not condemn Russia.

At the G20 meeting in Bengaluru, India, the United States arrived with a simple brief. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at the February 2023 summit that the G20 countries must condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and they must adhere to US sanctions against Russia. However, it became clear that India, the chair of the G20, was not willing to conform to the US agenda. Indian officials said that the G20 is not a political meeting, but a meeting to discuss economic issues. They contested the use of the word “war” to describe the invasion, preferring to describe it as a “crisis” and a “challenge.” France and Germany have rejected this draft if it does not condemn Russia.

Just as in Indonesia during the previous year’s summit, the 2023 G20 leaders are once again ignoring the pressure from the West to isolate Russia, with the large developing countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa) unwilling to budge from their practical view that isolation of Russia is endangering the world.

The next two G20 summits will be in Brazil (2024) and South Africa (2025), which would indicate to the West that the platform of the G20 will not be easily subordinated to the Western view of world affairs.

Most of the leaders of the G20 countries went to Bengaluru straight from Germany, where they had attended the Munich Security Conference. On the first day of the Munich conference, France’s President Emmanuel Macron said  that he was “shocked by how much credibility we are losing in the Global South.” The “we” in Macron’s statement was the Western states, led by the United States.

What is the evidence for this loss of credibility? Few of the states in the Global South have been willing to participate in the isolation of Russia, including voting  on Western resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly. Not all of the states that have refused to join the West are “anti-Western” in a political sense. Many of them—including the government in India—are driven by practical considerations, such as Russia’s discounted energy prices and the assets being sold at a lowered price by Western companies that are departing from Russia’s lucrative energy sector. Whether they are fed up with being pushed around by the West or they see economic opportunities in their relationship with Russia, increasingly, countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have avoided the pressure coming from Washington to break ties with Russia. It is this refusal and avoidance that drove Macron to make his strong statement about being “shocked” by the loss of Western credibility.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

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

(Article continued from the column on the left)

At a panel discussion  on February 18 at the Munich Security Conference, three leaders from Africa and Asia developed the argument about why they are unhappy with the war in Ukraine and the pressure campaign upon them to break ties with Russia. Brazil’s Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira—who later that day condemned  the Russian invasion of Ukraine in a tweet — called  upon the various parties to the conflict to “build the possibility of a solution. We cannot keep on talking only of war.”

Billions of dollars of arms have been sent by the Western states to Ukraine to prolong a war that needs to be ended before it escalates out of control. The West has blocked  negotiations ever since the possibility of an interim deal between Russia and Ukraine arose in March 2022. The talk of an endless war by Western politicians and the arming of Ukraine have resulted in Russia’s February 21, 2023, withdrawal from the New START treaty, which—with the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019—ends the nuclear weapons control regime.

Vieira’s comment about the need to “build the possibility of a solution” is one that is shared across the developing countries, who do not see the endless war as beneficial to the planet. As Colombia’s Vice President Francia Márquez said  on the same panel, “We don’t want to go on discussing who will be the winner or the loser of a war. We are all losers, and, in the end, it is humankind that loses everything.”

The most powerful statement in Munich was made by Namibia’s Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila. “We are promoting a peaceful resolution of that conflict” in Ukraine, she said, “so that the entire world and all the resources of the world can be focused on improving the conditions of people around the world instead of being spent on acquiring weapons, killing people, and actually creating hostilities.” When asked why Namibia abstained at the United Nations on the vote regarding the war, Kuugongelwa-Amadhila said, “Our focus is on resolving the problem… not on shifting blame.” The money used to buy weapons, she said, “could be better utilized to promote development in Ukraine, in Africa, in Asia, in other places, in Europe itself, where many people are experiencing hardships.” A Chinese plan for peace in Ukraine—built on the principles of the 1955 Bandung Conference—absorbs the points raised by these Global South leaders.

European leaders have been tone-deaf to the arguments being made by people such as Kuugongelwa-Amadhila. The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell had earlier shot himself in the foot with his ugly remarks  in October 2022 that “Europe is a garden. The rest of the world is a jungle. And the jungle could invade the garden… Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us.” In the February 2023 Munich Security Conference, Borrell—who is originally from Spain — said  that he shared “this feeling” of Macron’s that the West had to “preserve or even to rebuild trustful cooperation with many of the so-called Global South.” The countries of the South, Borrell said, are “accusing us of [a] double standard” when it comes to combating imperialism, a position that “we must debunk.”

A series of reports published by leading Western financial houses repeat the anxiety of people such as Borrell. BlackRock notes  that we are entering “a fragmented world with competing blocs,” while Credit Suisse points  to the “deep and persistent fractures” that have opened up in the world order. Credit Suisse’s assessment of these “fractures” describes them accurately: “The global West (Western developed countries and allies) has drifted away from the global East (China, Russia, and allies) in terms of core strategic interests, while the Global South (Brazil, Russia, India, and China and most developing countries) is reorganizing to pursue its own interests.”

This reorganization is now manifesting itself in the refusal by the Global South to bend the knee to Washington.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

United Nation General Assembly divides over Ukraine resolution and Belarus amendment

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Analysis by CPNN

The United States and its allies claimed victory at the United Nations with the vote on a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The final vote was 141 for, 7 against and 32 abstentions.

But a thorough analysis suggests that the victory was not so one-sided. If one considers the votes on the Belarus amendment to condemn arms shipments to the Ukraine, the General Assembly was divided with more than half (101 countries) failing to follow the American line regarding the vote on this amendment.

Of the 91 votes that defeated the Belarus amendment, 45 were cast by Europe and the US/Canada while 46 by all the rest of the world.


Voting on Belarus resolution condemning arms shipments to Ukraine

Here are the operative paragraphs of the two resolutions and the voting details.

Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine Draft resolution A/ES-11/L.7

1. Underscores the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Welcomes and expresses strong support for the efforts of the SecretaryGeneral and Member States to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, consistent with the Charter, including the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States;

3. Calls upon Member States and international organizations to redouble support for diplomatic efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, consistent with the Charter;

4. Reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters;

5. Reiterates its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, and calls for a cessation of hostilities;

6. Demands that the treatment by the parties to the armed conflict of all prisoners of war be in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 2 and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 3 and calls for the complete exchange of prisoners of war, the release of all unlawfully detained persons and the return of all internees and of civilians forcibly transferred and deported, including children;

7. Calls for full adherence by the parties to the armed conflict to their obligations under international humanitarian law to take constant care to spare the civilian population and civilian objects, to ensure safe and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need, and to refrain from attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;

8. Also calls for an immediate cessation of the attacks on the critical infrastructure of Ukraine and any deliberate attacks on civilian objects, including those that are residences, schools and hospitals;

9. Emphasizes the need to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law committed on the territory of Ukraine through appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level, and ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes;

10. Urges all Member States to cooperate in the spirit of solidarity to address the global impacts of the war on food security, energy, finance, the environment and nuclear security and safety, underscores that arrangements for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine should take into account these factors, and calls upon Member States to support the Secretary-General in his efforts to address these impacts;

11. Decides to adjourn the eleventh emergency special session of the General Assembly temporarily and to authorize the President of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.

Belarus: A/ES-11/L.9 – amendment to draft resolution A/ES-11/L.7

1 ; After the eighth preambular paragraph, insert a new preambular paragraph reading: Noting with concern the continuing supply of weapons by third parties to the zone of conflict that obstructs the prospects for sustainable peace,

2. After operative paragraph 5, insert a new operative paragraph reading: Calls for the start of peace negotiations;

3. After existing operative paragraph 10, insert a new operative paragraph reading: Calls upon Member States to address the root causes of the conflict in and around Ukraine, including legitimate security concerns of Member States;

4. After existing operative paragraph 10, insert a new operative paragraph reading: Also calls upon Member States to refrain from sending weapons to the zone of conflict.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

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

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Here are the voting details of the 101 countries that did not follow the American line regarding the vote on the Belarus amendment.

15 countries voted for the Belarus amendment

Angola
Belarus
China
Cuba
North Korea
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Honduras
Iran
Mali
Nicaragua
Russia
Syria
Zimbabwe

52 countries abstained on the Belarus amendment

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Daresalam
Burundi
Colombia
Congo
Djibouti
El Salvador
Gabon
Ghana
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lesotho
Libya
Malaysia
Mexico
Mongolia
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines
Saint Vincent
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Tajikistan
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Uwbekistan
Yemen

17 countries did not vote on the Belarus amendment although they voted for the final resolution

Cambodia
Chad
Comoros
DR Congo
Kiribati
Madagascar
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Niger
Rwanda
Saint Lucia
Serbia
Seychelles
Solomon Islands
Somalia
Timor Leste

4 countries did not vote on the Belarus resolution while they abstained on the final resolution

Armenia
Central African Republic
Kazakhstan
Vietnam

13 countries did not vote on the Belarus or the final resolution

Azerbaijan
Burkina Faso
Cameroun
Dominica
Equatorial Africa
Eswatini
Grenada
Guinea Bissau
Lebanon
Senegal
Turkmenistan
UR Tanzania
Venezuela

Note 1: The fact that a country does not vote on a resolution is not always a political statement. However, in this case, 21 countries did not vote on the Belarus amendment but voted or abstained on the final resolution while no country did the opposite, voting or abstaining only on the Belarus amendment. The other 13 that failed to vote on either the amendment or the resolution tend to be aligned with other countries that abstained rather than being aligned with the US, NATO and their allies. Thus it seems likely that in most cases the absence of a vote was a political statement, and it has been counted as such here.

Note 2: The representative of Mexico voiced his regret that the last-minute amendments by Belarus had not been tabled in sufficient time for their full consideration.

Celebrating Radio Day in Haiti

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article from Loop news

The Office for the Protection of Citizens (OPC) reaffirms its support for press workers on the occasion of World Radio Day, UNESCO distributes safety kits to journalists…

Monday, February 13, 2023 marked the 12th edition of World Radio Day. It is celebrated this year under the theme “Radio and Peace”. On this occasion, the Office for the protection of the Citizen takes a stand for a culture of tolerance through information.


Ceremony for handing over materials to journalists by UNESCO. Photos taken by Marc Henley Augustin

The OPC says it reaffirms its support for radio stations and journalists, pillars of democracy and a rule of law based on the universal virtues of respect for freedoms.

“Just as a program can bring peace, reconciliation, just as it can cause misunderstandings and dissension”, noted the OPC in a note which bears the signature of the Protector of the Citizen, Ms Renan Hedouville.

On this occasion, the OPC urged media workers to fully play their role in order to continue to help society preserve democratic gains in the processing of information.

(continued in right column)

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

Question(s) related to this article:

Will UNESCO once again play a role in the culture of peace?

How can peace be promoted by radio?

(continued from left column)

He took the opportunity to support Vision 2000 radio journalist Jean Thony Lorthé, kidnapped for more than two weeks. The OPC strongly condemned these practices which endanger individual freedoms, invoking article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights which stipulates that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of his person.

Finally, according to this independent body, independent radio as a pillar of conflict prevention and peacebuilding must be at the service of all, mainly minorities. It must play its role at all times for a culture of peace by informing the public objectively, stated Ms Renan Hédouville.

For its part, the UNESCO office in Port-au-Prince celebrated the 12th edition of World Radio Day by distributing equipment (PRESS vests, helmets and gas masks) to four associations of media and journalists: the Collective of Online Media (CMEL), the Haitian Association of Online Media (AHML), the National Network of Online Media (RENAMEL) and the Association of Haitian Journalists (AJH).

In her speech for the occasion, the head of UNESCO in Haiti, Tatiana Villegas, stated that due to the security, socio-political situation and the actions of armed gangs, “the Haitian context is currently increasingly very worrying”.

“This is why,” she stated,” we want to raise awareness among both media and social actors of the very important and indispensable role that the media (radio) could play in resolving conflicts and establishing a climate of peace. security and peace in Haiti”.

By distributing these safety kits for the benefit of journalist-reporters, UNESCO says it wants to “fight against misinformation by encouraging journalists to identify themselves very clearly in order to go to the source and bring quality information to the public. It is also a concrete way to promote the safety of journalists considering that last year 9 journalists were murdered in the exercise of their function in Haiti”.

Interview with Helen Caldicott: “We’ve never been closer to nuclear catastrophe”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute and pubished by the Asia Times.

The following interview took place on January 25, 2023, one day after the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced  the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds before midnight – in large part because of developments in Ukraine.

Helen Caldicott (above), an Australian peace activist and environmentalist, discussed the extreme and imminent threat of a nuclear holocaust due to a proxy war between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She also addressed the announcement by the US Department of Energy of a controlled nuclear reaction and outlines the relationship between the nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons.

Caldicott is the author of numerous books and is a recipient of at least 12 honorary doctorates. She was nominated for the Nobel Prize by physicist Linus Pauling and named by the Smithsonian Institution as one of the most influential women of the 20th century. Her public talks describing the horrors of nuclear war from a medical perspective raised the consciousness of a generation.

Caldicott believes that the reality of destroying all of life on the planet has receded from public consciousness, making doomsday more likely. As the title of her recent book  states, we are “sleepwalking to Armageddon.”

Steve Taylor: What is the Doomsday Clock, and why is it now set to 90 seconds to midnight?

Helen Caldicott: For the last year, it’s been at 100 seconds to midnight, which is the closest it’s ever been. Each year they reset the clock according to international problems, nuclear problems. Ninety seconds to midnight – I don’t think that is close enough; it’s closer than that. I would put it at 20 seconds to midnight.

I think we’re in an extremely invidious position where nuclear war could occur tonight, by accident or by design. It’s very clear to me, actually, that the United States is going to war with Russia. And that means, almost certainly, nuclear war – and that means the end of almost all life on Earth.

ST: Do you see similarities with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis?

HC: Yes. I got to know John F Kennedy’s secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, later in his life. He was in the Oval Office at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. He once told me, “Helen, we came so close to nuclear war – three minutes.” Three minutes. We’re in a similar situation now.

ST: So back then, though, famously, the world held its breath during the missile crisis.

HC: Oh, we were terrified. Terrified, absolutely terrified.

ST: That doesn’t seem to be the case today.

HC: Today, the public and policymakers are not being informed adequately about what this really means – that the consequences would be so bizarre and so horrifying.

It’s very funny; New York City  put out a video  as a hypothetical [public service announcement] in July 2022 showing a woman in the street, and it says the bombs are coming, and it’s going to be a nuclear war. It says that what you do is go inside, you don’t stand by the windows, you stand in the center of the room, and you’ll be all right. I mean, it’s absolutely absurd.

ST: That is what you were fighting against back in the ’70s and ’80s – this notion that a nuclear war is survivable.

HC: Yes. There was a US defense official called T K Jones who reportedly said, don’t worry; “if there are enough shovels to go around,” we’ll make it. And his plan was if the bombs are coming and they take half an hour to come, you get out the trusty shovel. You dig a hole. You get in the hole. Someone puts two doors on top and then piles on dirt.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Continued from left column)

I mean, they had plans. But the thing about it is that evolution will be destroyed. We may be the only life in the universe. And if you’ve ever looked at the structure of a single cell, or the beauty of the birds or a rose, I mean, what responsibility do we have?

ST: During the Cuban missile crisis, the US did not want missiles pointed at it from Cuba, and the Soviet Union did not want missiles pointed at it from Turkey. Do you see any similarities with the conflict in Ukraine?

HC: Oh, sure. The United States has nuclear weapons in European countries, all ready to go and land on Russia. How do you think Russia feels – a little bit paranoid?

Imagine if the Warsaw Pact moved into Canada, all along the northern border of the US, and put missiles all along the northern border. What would the US do? She’d probably blow up the planet as she nearly did with the Cuban missile crisis. I mean, it’s so extraordinarily unilateral in the thinking, not putting ourselves in the minds of the Russian people.

ST: Do you feel we’re more at risk of nuclear war now than we were during the Cold War?

HC: Yes. We’re closer to nuclear war than we’ve ever been. And that’s what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists indicated by moving the clock to 90 seconds to midnight.

ST: Does it seem like political leaders are more cavalier about nuclear exchange now?

HC: Yes, because they haven’t taken in what nuclear war would really mean. And the Pentagon is run by these cavalier folks who are making millions out of selling weapons. Almost the whole of the US budget goes to killing and murder, rather than to health care and education and the children in Yemen, who are, millions of them, starving.

I mean, we’ve got the money to fix everything on Earth, and also to power the world with renewable energy. The money is there. It’s going into killing and murder instead of life.

ST: You mentioned energy. The US Department of Energy has announced  a so-called fusion breakthrough. What do you think about the claims that fusion may be our energy future?

HC: The technology wasn’t part of an energy experiment. It was part of a nuclear weapons experiment  called the Stockpile Stewardship Program. It is inappropriate; it produced an enormous amount of radioactive waste and very little energy. It will never be used to fuel global energy needs for humankind.

ST: Could you tell us a little bit about the history of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, where scientists developed this fusion technology?

HC: The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was where the first hydrogen bombs were developed. It was set up in 1952, by Edward Teller, a wicked man.

ST: There is this promotion of nuclear energy as a green alternative. Is the nuclear-energy industry tied to nuclear weapons?

HC: Of course. In the ’60s, when people were scared stiff of nuclear weapons, there was a Pentagon psychologist who said, look, if we have peaceful nuclear energy, that will alleviate the people’s fear.

ST: At the end of your 1992 book If You Love This Planet, you wrote, “Hope for the Earth lies not with leaders, but in your own heart and soul. If you decide to save the Earth, it will be saved. Each person can be as powerful as the most powerful person who ever lived – and that is you, if you love this planet.” Do you stand by that?

HC: If we acknowledge the horrifying reality that there is an extreme and imminent threat of nuclear war, it’s like being told that as a planet, we have a terminal disease. If we’re scared enough, every one of us can save the planet. But we have to be very powerful and determined.

– – – – –

This interview has been edited for clarity and length. A video of the description of nuclear war from the interview can be viewed on Vimeo. Listen to the entire interview, available for streaming on Breaking Green’s website  or wherever you get your podcasts. Breaking Green  is produced by the Global Justice Ecology Project.

Let’s “work together for peace”, Nuns, Clergy Appeal after South Sudan Peace Pilgrimage

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article from ACI Africa

The ecumenical visit to South Sudan undertaken by Pope Francis, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, Rev. Dr. Iain Greenshields, is a challenge to be instruments of peace and hope to the people of God in the East-Central African nation, ACI Africa has been told.

Pope Francis ended his ecumenical trip in South Sudan with a farewell ceremony at Juba international after presiding over Holy Mass at the grounds of Dr. John Garang Mausoleum.


Photo credit: Vatican Media

More than 100,000 people participated in the Papal Mass that was held at the Mausoleum commemorating Dr. John Garang, a liberation leader known as the “father of South Sudan”.

In an interview with ACI Africa at the Papal Mass venue, a member of Solidarity with South Sudan (SSS), an initiative of the International Union of Superiors General (UISG) and the Union of Superiors General (USG), established in response to a request from the members of the Sudan Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SCBC), described the ecumenical trip as an “epoch-making visit”.

“The fact that the three of them have come together to visit us in South Sudan gives a great signal that we can come together as Christians to work together for peace,” Sr. Cecilia Nya said.

The Nigerian-born member of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus (SHCJ) emphasized, “South Sudan is mostly a Christian country, so we can come together to work together for peace.”

Sr. Nya who serves at the Good Shepherd Peace Center went on to recall the 11 April 2019 dramatic gesture when Pope Francis knelt and kissed the feet of President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Dr. Riek Machar among other South Sudanese political leaders.

She is both ecumenically and interfaith minded and works “The powerful gesture that Pope Francis made … by inviting the President and the Vice presidents and the politicians of this country to Rome for a special retreat was a fantastic gesture and in fact I heard somebody saying one of the politicians who was there saying that he cried,” she told ACI Africa on February 5 just before the Papal Mass started.

Sr. Nya who has previously been part of SHCJ Leadership Team continued, “This coming of the Pope to South Sudan is a clarion call that let our hearts be broken, not our garments torn. I think it is a big call for all of us to join hands to fan into flame the fire that Pope Francis has ignited by this visit.”

“All of us from the top to the bottom, from the grassroots, everybody has to be more committed to working for peace, to ensuring that peace is restored in the land,” she said.

The SHCJ member who, from 2009 to 2014, served on the Board of Directors of UNANIMA International, a non-governmental organization advocating on behalf of women and children, immigrants and refugees, and the environment, expressed confidence in realizing peace in South Sudan, saying, “We can make it; we’ve got the Spirit working in and through everybody.”


On her part, Sr. Mary Moraa told ACI Africa that the Apostolic Journey of the Holy Father was “timely and appropriate for us here in South Sudan, especially for what has been going on in these past days.”

The member of the Pious Society of the Daughters of St. Paul (FSP) explained, “South Sudan is a country that has suffered so long in civil wars since 1956. So, in a way, the Pope comes to call us, that we become the people who give hope and peace to the people of South Sudan.”

(Article continued in right column.)

Question for this article

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

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from left column.)

“People live without hope because of the so much suffering that they have gone through,” Sr. Moraa said during the February 5 interview, adding that “as a person who is supposed to become salt and light, I’m supposed to become that hope that there is a better tomorrow … to bring light in the moment of darkness for these people who have suffered for so long.”

The Kenyan-born FSP member who has been in South Sudan since last August further said, “I pray and hope that the words of the Pope will sink deep into the hearts of our leaders and that they will implement them.”

“Differences on tribal lines should be kept aside and we all work for peace,” Sr. Moraa went on to say, and added, “We need a break from this suffering; all the blood that has been poured has to come to an end … We need a better tomorrow; we need a better South Sudan.”

She reflected on their apostolate in the light of the exhortations of the Holy Father. “As a Congregation of the Daughters of Saint Paul, I think we are also called to become these channels of peace and hope to the people through our apostolate,” she said.

“We are involved in the means of social communication,” Sr. Moraa who has previously served in Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, and her native country of Kenya said, and added, “in the books that we distribute, the major theme in this our South Sudan should be peace and hope so that all the tribes feel that we are working for them.”

“I feel that it’s a challenge that has been brought to us as Daughters of St. Paul to work on this peace in South Sudan in our own ways through the means of social communication that we use in our apostolate,” she said during the February 5 interview in Juba, moments after the Holy Father left for Rome in the company of Archbishop Welby, and Rev. Dr. Greenshields.

“The visit of the Pope has just ended, and from it I take the following for myself: to become Moses, to become salt and light for the people of South Sudan,” Sr. Moraa told ACI Africa.

In carrying out the apostolate as Daughters of St. Paul in South Sudan, she continued, “we are not favoring anybody but we are working for all of them to become one, to become peaceful in their coexistence among themselves, so that we have one country, not a country that is divided among individuals on the lines of tribes and clans.”

Also speaking to ACI Africa after the Papal Mass on the grounds of Dr. John Garang Mausoleum, a member of the Religious Institute of the Salesians of Don Bosco (SDB) said he was touched by the simple gesture of Pope Francis visiting South Sudan.

“I am touched by the simple gesture of the Holy Father coming to our land. This land where there is violence, there is war and all kinds of atrocities yet this Holy man, this humble man comes to us, to be with and to reassure us that better days will surely come,” Fr. Charles Taban said.

The South Sudanese Catholic Priest who ministers among young people in Sudan’s Catholic Diocese of El Obeid added in reference to Pope Francis, “We are encouraged by his presence.”

“We admire the Holy Father for the powerful messages he has left to us,” Fr. Taban said, and added, “The message of hope that he has left to us will give us a kind of impetus to move forward and to work for peace and reconciliation in this country,”

He continued, “I am certain of our politicians; they are all Christians and for certain they have been moved by the message of the Holy Father and above all by the gesture that he made by coming to be with us.”

The native of South Sudan’s Wau Diocese urged all people of goodwill to “to help us in whichever way you can, in your own capacity to help us build a true culture of peace in South Sudan.”

For the Archbishop of Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Archdiocese, the realization of the previously postponed Papal trip to Africa was “a great joy”.

“A great joy that he finally came to South Sudan because as you know he was supposed to come some months back but he finally came and greeted the people,” Berhaneyesus Demerew Cardinal Souraphiel said about Pope Francis, adding, “He is an instrument of peace and South Sudan needs peace and he spoke also to the leaders yesterday, to the nation (about) enough conflict, enough war.”

In the February 4 interview with ACI Africa at St. Theresa’s Cathedral of Juba Archdiocese, the Cardinal who serves as the President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Ethiopia (CBCE) said South Sudan “is a beautiful country; it is a young country that needs peace and reconciliation and reconstruction.”

“I have the confidence that his (Pope Francis) message has gone down to the people and also to the political leaders,” Cardinal Souraphiel, a member of the Congregation of the Mission (CM) said.