Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

John Paul Lederach: How a Civil War Can Be Avoided in the United States?

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A review of The Pocket Guide for Facing Down a Civil War by John Paul Lederach

In this Pocket Guide, internationally renowned peace practitioner John Paul Lederach reflects on his experience across over four decades mediating and transforming conflicts in places including Northern Ireland, Colombia, Nepal, Somalia, South Sudan, Nicaragua, and Tajikistan, among many others. His experiences grant him a unique perspective not only on what precipitates, propels, and sustains violent conflict, but also into key understandings and approaches that help shift dynamics of harm toward practices of social healing.

Screenshot

The Guide is framed to reflect on questions increasingly posed about the likelihood of divisive polarization in the United States leading toward political violence and even civil war. To consider this question, Lederach offers a comparative view. He suggests that despite the tendency in the U.S. to hold to exceptionalism, the country is not exempt from the toxic dynamics that have been faced in other settings where open armed conflict, once unleashed, became nearly impossible to end. In each chapter, Lederach describes a challenging pattern that repeats across contexts and animates toxic polarization and sustained armed conflict. He illustrates these dynamics with stories, observations, and wisdom gathered from his work with local communities and national leaders in places impacted by such toxicity, describing how they faced down and shifted seemingly ceaseless cycles of violence. 

This Pocket Guide does not offer quick fixes. Rather, it explores the way ordinary people resisted and countered patterns of violence in their communities. Their curiosity, persistence, and creative innovation suggest that to face down a civil war and heal long-standing wounds that stoke cycles of violence, people must resist the pull of toxic polarization that legitimates violence as the only option. The challenge is to innovate pockets of vitality that embody the basic idea that politics without violence where we live is possible. Such innovation requires a web of courageous relationships that reach across divides, creating the connective tissue that fosters dignity and respect within, between, and across deep political and cultural difference.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
How Can a Civil War Be Avoided in the United States?

(Continued from left column)

In addition to the Pocket Guide, John Paul Lederach has written an op-ed in the Washington Post on this subject.

Based on the analysis above, his op-ed proposes three actions that we should all take:

1. We need to reach beyond our isolated bubbles and open conversations with the perceived enemies in our communities.

2. We have to rehumanize our adversaries; We must have the courage to confront dehumanizing language and behavior, especialy when it comes from within our closest circles.

3. We need to stick with it. We can’t just pull away when difficult issues emerge.

In the article he lists six websites that tell about good initiatives to overcome polarization and develop a peaceful society.

He concludes the op-ed by saying:

The best way to end a civil war is to stop it before it happens.

Will Americans have the courage to nurture these initiatives demonstrating that politics — honest partisan politics — can thrive without violence? I believe we can, and we must.

– – – – – –

(Editor’s note: One is reminded of the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi who said that we never have an enemy, what he have are opponents that we have yet to convince. And we should keep trying to convince them. Gandhi went each week to see the English viceroy who ran the occupation of his country, to tell him of the actions he was going to take for liberation, and to try to convince him that liberation was inevitable and that the British should leave and give India its freedom. In one sense he was successful. The British left without need for a violent revolution. But unfortunately, despite Gandhi’s valiant efforts, India was not able to escape an ensuing civil war between Hindus and Muslims that left a million dead and the division of India into three countries based on religious affiliation.)

– – – – – –

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.

UN chief warns of nuclear ‘danger’ as world remembers Hiroshima; urges elimination of weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the United Nations News Service

The UN Secretary-General called for nuclear disarmament on Tuesday as the world marked 79 years since the bombing of Hiroshima, promising that the UN will “spare no effort to ensure the horrors of that day are never repeated.”


UN Photo/Yoshito Matsushige. Wounded civilians who escaped the blaze gather on a sidewalk west of Miyuki-bashi in Hiroshima, Japan, around 11 a.m. on August 6, 1945.

On 6 August 1945, the United States dropped a bomb dubbed ‘Little Boy’, on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, as World War Two continued. The bombing resulted in immense devastation which killed and injured tens of thousands of people.

The Secretary-General insisted that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is not just “confined to history books” but a “real and present danger” today – once again looming large “in the daily rhetoric of international relations.”

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for a version in French or here for a version in Spanish

Question related to this article:
 
Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

The lessons of Hiroshima

In a message delivered in the Japanese city by UN disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu, Mr. Guterres said the lessons of Hiroshima which encourage disarmament and peace have been “pushed aside” but he recognised the people of Hiroshima’s efforts to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again.

He further insisted that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable and “a nuclear war cannot be won – and must never be fought.”

He said this is a lesson that shows we need disarmament now.

The message for the future

As the Hiroshima Peace Memorial ceremony continued, Mr. Guterres said that global mistrust and division have grown, but we must ensure not to “press our luck again.”

“Some are recklessly rattling the nuclear saber once more,” he said. “The world must stand together to condemn this unacceptable behaviour.”

Looking ahead to the Summit of the Future in New York next month, the Secretary-General said it is a “critical opportunity for governments to renew their commitment to multilateralism, sustainable development and peace, and adopt an actionable and forward-looking Pact for the Future.”

He said that conflict prevention, disarmament and a nuclear weapons-free world need to be at the heart of these efforts.

“We will never forget the lessons of 6 August 1945,” he said. “No more Hiroshimas. No more Nagasakis.”

Renewed determination

On Tuesday, UN disarmament chief, Ms. Nakamitsu echoed that message online.

In a statement on X, she also renewed her determination “to continue to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. For the security of all peoples.”

Hiroshima Peace Declaration 2024

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the City of Hiroshima

Every year on August 6, the City of Hiroshima holds a Peace Memorial Ceremony to pray for the peaceful repose of the victims, and for the abolition of nuclear weapons and lasting world peace. During that ceremony, the Mayor issues a Peace Declaration directed toward the world at large. Hiroshima’s mayor will continue to issue these declarations calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth to build a world of genuine and lasting world peace where no population will ever again experience the cruel devastation suffered by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Peace Declaration

Citizens of the world, what do you think? Are more powerful nuclear forces necessary for national security? What about arms races, competing to maintain superiority over other nations? Russia’s protracted invasion of Ukraine and the worsening situation between Israel and Palestine are claiming the lives of countless innocent people, shattering normal life. It seems to me that these global tragedies are deepening distrust and fear among nations, reinforcing the public assumption that, to solve international problems, we have to rely on military force, which we should be rejecting. Given such circumstances, how can nations offer safety and security to their people? Is that not impossible?

Through the pillars under the Peace Memorial Museum, we can see the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims. Anyone praying at the Cenotaph can look straight through it to the Atomic Bomb Dome. Peace Memorial Park, with these structures on its north-south axis, was built in accordance with the Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction Law, enacted seventy-five years ago today. Built by the people of Hiroshima and many other seekers of peace, it has become a place to memorialize the victims and to think, talk, and make promises to each other about peace.

If, after the war, Japan had abandoned our Peace Constitution and focused on rebuilding our military, the city of peace Hiroshima is today would not exist. Standing here, we can all feel our predecessors’ determination to eliminate the scourge of war, trusting in the justice and faith of peace-loving people around the world.

Expressing that determination, one hibakusha continually communicated the spirit of Hiroshima. “Now is the time to turn the tide of history, to get beyond the hatreds of the past, uniting beyond differences of race and nationality to turn distrust into trust, hatred into reconciliation, and conflict into harmony.” This uplifting sentiment was written by a man who, as a 14-year-old boy, saw scenes from a living hell— a baby with skin peeled down to red flesh next to its mother burned from head to toe, and a corpse with its guts strewn out on the dirt.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for a version in French.)

Question related to this article:
 
Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

In 1989, a massive people’s movement for democracy brought down the Berlin Wall, the predominant symbol of the Cold War. President Gorbachev expressed humanity’s collective need for peace and his determination to stop the arms race, end nuclear terror, eradicate nuclear weapons, and relentlessly pursue political solutions to regional conflicts. He and President Reagan worked together through dialogue to bring the Cold War to an end, which led to the United States and the Soviet Union concluding the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. They demonstrated that policymakers can overcome even critical situations through resolute commitment to dialogue.

Let us not be resigned to pessimism about the chaotic world situation. Instead, let us be as determined as our forebears, and, united as one, with hope in our hearts, take collective action. Our unity will move leaders now relying on nuclear deterrence to shift their policies. We could make that happen.

To extinguish the suspicion and doubt that create conflicts, civil society must foster a circle of trust through exchange and dialogue with consideration for others. We must spread beyond national borders the sense of safety we feel in our daily lives. The crucial step here is to share and empathize with the experiences and values of others through music, art, sports, and other interactions. Through such exchange, let us create a world in which we all share the Culture of Peace. In particular, I call on our youth, who will lead future generations, to visit Hiroshima and, taking to heart what they experience here, create a circle of friendship with people of all ages. I hope they will ponder what they can do now, and act together to expand their circle of hope. The city of Hiroshima, working with Mayors for Peace, which now has more than 8,400 member cities in 166 countries and regions, will actively support community endeavors to raise peace consciousness.

Last fiscal year, approximately 1.98 million people from around the world visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. This record number is evidence of unprecedented interest in the atomic-bombed city and a rise in peace consciousness. My hope is that all world leaders will visit Hiroshima, experience the will of civil society, gain a deeper understanding of the atomic bombing, and hold in their hearts the hibakusha plea, “No one should ever suffer as we have.” Then, while they are here, I hope they will, with iron resolve, issue a compelling call for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Twice in a row the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference has failed to adopt a final document. These failures have revealed a harsh reality, namely, the enormous differences among countries with respect to nuclear weapons. I hope the Japanese government, which has declared repeatedly that the NPT is the cornerstone of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, will exercise strong leadership, calling all countries to transcend their positions and engage in constructive dialogue toward a relationship of trust. Furthermore, I request that Japan, as a practical effort toward a nuclear-weapon-free world, participate as an observer at the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to be held in March next year. Subsequently and as soon as possible, Japan must become a party to the treaty. In addition, I demand that the Japanese government strengthen measures of support for the hibakusha, including those living outside Japan. Now that their average age has exceeded 85, the government must accept that they are still suffering the many adverse emotional and physical effects of radiation.

Today, at this Peace Memorial Ceremony marking 79 years since the bombing, we offer our deepest condolences to the souls of the atomic bomb victims. Together with Nagasaki and likeminded people around the world, remembering once again the hibakusha struggle, we pledge to make every effort to abolish nuclear weapons and light the way toward lasting world peace. Citizens of the world, let us all, with hope in our hearts, walk with Hiroshima toward tomorrow’s peace.

August 6, 2024

Matsui Kazumi
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima

Restore the Olympic peace: Over 50 Nobel laureates have written an open letter calling for a global ceasefire for the duration of the Paris Olympics

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Novaya Gazeta

There are at least 55 ongoing wars around the world. Politicians have consistently failed to end the armed conflicts that are ravaging their societies, and the dangers have been multiplied by the fact that local wars no longer remain local.

The bloody conflict between Russia and Ukraine — the biggest war on the European continent since 1945 — has entered its third year and is still reverberating worldwide. The spillover effects have included increased famine in Africa, a migration crisis in Europe, and the release of harmful substances into water, food, and milk supplies that ultimately reach people on six continents.

By the end of this year, the number of people killed and injured as a result of the war in Ukraine is expected to exceed 1 million — a casualty toll not seen in Europe since World War II. In Gaza, where war has raged since last October, the United Nations puts the death toll as of January at 25,000 — but the number may well be much higher. And in Yemen, the UN says that 377,000 have died in the fighting or from disease over the past decade of civil war.

As these and other conflicts rage, defence budgets around the world are expanding substantially; and hanging over it all is the threat — repeated again and again in Ukraine — of nuclear war. The resources being mobilised are comparable to those needed to address climate change, or to eliminate hunger globally for the next 80 years.

Instead of sustaining life, resources are being wasted on spreading death.

Just think about that: No one would go hungry or die of exhaustion, and no child would be undernourished, if the money now being spent on weaponry and soldiers was instead used to better the lives of the world’s poor. Instead of sustaining life, resources are being wasted on spreading death.

The victims of today’s wars are mostly people between the ages of 30 and 40, meaning that each death represents approximately half a life that could have been. Every 100,000 people killed is another 4 million years not lived. Consider all the breakthrough discoveries that will not be made, the children who will not be born, and the orphans who will suffer alone.

We and our co-signatories (below) are not representatives of states. But if the efforts of states to establish peace are insufficient, individuals — no matter their work or their station in life — must step up. The world must confront today’s wars with one voice. That is why we are asking His Holiness Pope Francis, His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIV, and Muslim and Jewish leaders to use their moral authority to appeal to all citizens of the world and to their governments.

The 2024 Summer Olympic Games in Paris is an ideal opportunity to do this. During the Olympic Games of antiquity, the frequent wars between the Greek city-states were suspended while competition would take place between athletes in search of excellence. We hope the billions of people who watch the Paris Games will follow this example and join with the world’s religious and moral leaders in calling for peace.

The conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere call for an immediate ceasefire, followed by the exchange of all prisoners, the release of hostages, the return of human remains, and the start of negotiations. Our primary duty as adults is to ensure that our children survive us. Instead of destroying each other and our societies with violence, let us devote our energies and resources to saving our planet. Let us begin by reviving the Olympic peace.

(Editor’s note: Despite the following important signatories from around the world, it is shameful that, as of July 29 according to the google search engine, this powerful statement has been ignored by the major mass media of the West although it has been republished by Ahram Online from Egypt, the Japan Times , the TCE Exchange based in the Netherlands, the Bangkok Post, the Project Syndicate, based in the United States, and, of course, here in CPNN, based in France.)

Signatories

Emmanuelle Charpentier, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020, Professor at Humboldt University in Berlin; Director of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens;

Elias James Corey, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1990, Professor of organic chemistry Harvard University;

Alan Heeger, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2000, Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara;

Roald Hoffmann, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1981, Professor of Humane Letters, Cornell University;

Martin Karplus, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2013, Director of the Biophysical Chemistry Laboratory, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, Harvard University;

Brian K. Kobilka, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2012, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine;

Yuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1986, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley;

Morten Meldal, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2022, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley;

Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of Strasbourg;

Richard R. Schrock, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2005, Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Riverside;

Hideki Shirakawa, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2000, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Tsukuba;

James Fraser Stoddart, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016, Chair Professor in Chemistry University of Hong Kong and Northwestern University;

(Continued in right column)

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

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Continued from left column)

Finn E. Kydland, Nobel Prize in Economics 2004, Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara;

Paul R. Milgrom, Nobel Prize in Economics 2020, Professor of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford University;

Christopher A. Pissarides, Nobel Prize in Economics 2010, Professor of Economics, London School of Economics;

Svetlana Alexievich, Nobel Prize in Literature 2015, writer, journalist;

Elfriede Jelinek, Nobel Prize in Literature 2004, writer;

Werner Arber, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1978, Professor of Medicine, University of Basel, retired;

Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2008, Pasteur Institute, retired;

Louis J. Ignarro, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1998, Professor Emeritus of pharmacology, UCLA School of Medicine;

Barry J. Marshall, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2005, Professor of Clinical Microbiology, University of Western Australia;

Edvard Moser, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2014, Professor of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology;

May-Britt Moser, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2014, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology;

Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1991, Professor Emeritus of Medicine, University of Göttingen;

Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2019, Clinical Research Director, Francis Crick Institute;

Charles M. Rice, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2020, Professor of virology, Rockefeller University;

Sir Richard J. Roberts, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1993, Chief Scientific Officer, New England Biolabs;

Gregg L. Semenza, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2019, Professor of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine;

Hamilton O. Smith, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1978, Scientific director, Synthetic Genomics;
Jack W. Szostak, Nobel Prize in Medicine 2009, Professor of genetics, University of Chicago;

Torsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize in Medicine 1981, co-director of the Shelby White and Leon Levy Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior, Rockefeller University;

Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Nobel Peace Prize 1996, Roman Catholic Bishop, Diocese of Maputo, Mozambique;

Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize 1976, Activist, cofounder of Community of Peace People, Northern Ireland;

Beatrice Fihn, Nobel Peace Prize 2017, Former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons;

Tawakkol Karman, Nobel Peace Prize 2011, Co-founder the human rights group Women Journalists Without Chains;

Denis Mukwege, Nobel Peace Prize 2018, founder and director, Panzi Hospital, Bukavu, DR Congo;

Dmitry Muratov, Co-Founder, Publisher, and former editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, Nobel Peace Prize 2021;

Maria Ressa, Co-Founder and CEO of Rappler, Nobel Peace Prize 2021;

Oscar Arias Sanchez, Nobel Peace Prize 1987, Former President of Costa Rica;

Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Prize 1997, Founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines;

Pierre Agostini, Nobel Prize in Physics 2023, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Ohio State University;

Barry Clark Barish, Nobel Prize in Physics 2017, Professor of Physics emeritus, California Institute of Technology;

Steven Chu, Nobel Prize in Physics 1997, Former US Secretary of Energy;

Andre Geim, Nobel Prize in Physics 2010, Professor of physics, University of Manchester;

Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Prize in Physics 1973, Professor Emeritus of physics, University of Cambridge;

Takaaki Kajita, Nobel Prize in Physics 2015, President, Science Council of Japan;

Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel Prize in Physics 1985, Director, Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research;

Ferenc Krausz, Nobel Prize in Physics 2023, Director, Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics and a professor of experimental physics, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich;

Michel Mayor, Nobel Prize in Physics 2019, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Geneva;

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize in Physics 2020, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford;

William D. Phillips, Nobel Prize in Physics 1997, Professor of physics, University of Maryland.

– – – – – –

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.

Campaign Nonviolence Action Days 2024 – Calls-To-Action

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

An article from Pace e Bene

From Sept 21 to Oct 2, 2024, (Int’l Day of Peace to Int’l Day of Nonviolence), join tens of thousands of people in creatively building a culture of peace rooted in active nonviolence. Last year, people held over 5,000 actions, events, and marches across the USA and in 20 countries. Over 60,000 people participated in these events. 


In 2024, join us in advancing peace and nonviolence, and addressing the entwined issues of violence, war, poverty, racism, and environmental destruction. 

We welcome your ideas for actions. We also invite you to participate in our calls-to-action that work on specific aspects of a culture of nonviolence. Offer a teach-in on nonviolence. Call for ceasefires. Organize labor strike solidarity. Train in how to interrupt racial harassment. Connect the issues of climate and militarism. There’s something for everyone in these Campaign Nonviolence calls-to-action!

You can organize in several ways:

° Organize your own action to build a culture of peace and active nonviolence, free from war, poverty, racism, and environmental destruction. Just tell us the details and we’ll add you to the Action Days list. 

° Sign-up for one or more of our specific calls-to-action. The actions have been chosen to connect the dots between the issues and explore the many forms of nonviolence including education, constructive programs, healing work, direct action, and protests. You can join actions on Sept 21st (Int’l Day of Peace) and Oct 2nd (Int’l Day of Nonviolence). You can also choose a call-to-action that can be done any time between those dates. You pick a date that works best for you and your group, while still feeling the solidarity of others taking action in similar ways. 

Spread the word! Grow the movement by reaching out to local groups and inviting them to join in. The Campaign Nonviolence Action Days are designed to bring together the many issues, movements, and efforts working to end violence and build a world that works for all of us.

Questions? Contact Rivera Sun: rivera(at)paceebene.org

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can peace be guaranteed through nonviolent means?

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Article continued from left column)

International Day of Peace: Build A Culture of Peace

° From Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan to Colombia, the need for peace is urgent and widespread. On September 21st, the International Day of Peace, take action to call for ceasefires, educate the community about peace, and honor the peacemakers on the local and global levels.  More info.

International Day of Nonviolence: Nonviolence Teach-Ins

° October 2nd is Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday and the International Day of Nonviolence. On this day, connect with as many children and adults as possible to discuss, learn about, and explore nonviolence. Use our tools and resources to host creative teach-ins. Do a Facebook live or Instagram post on the subject of nonviolence. Or put up informational posters around town. Or interrupt classes or meetings with a 5-minute speech on nonviolence. Or sidewalk chalk nonviolence principles in public places. More info.

Ending Violence: Train To Interrupt Violence & Harassment

° Train your community in bystander intervention, de-escalation, and anti-harassment skills. Prepare people to be able to stop incidents of violence and harassment at work, on public transit, in the home, at the store, or in the streets. As we approach the 2024 elections, you could also help poll workers and poll watchers prepare to de-escalate potential violence at the polls. More info.

Ending Poverty: Mutual Aid & Labor Strike Solidarity

° Organize a group to participate in mutual aid and/or labor strike solidarity, i.e. hold a bake sale for a strike fund, go to a picket line, join a boycott of a business where the workers are striking, or other ways of supporting a strike. More info.

Environment: Peace & Planet Solidarity

° Use our Peace & Planet Solidarity Toolkit to take action on the ways the climate crisis and militarism connect, or how war damages the environment. You will also find creative ideas for organizing peace and planet events with children.  More info.

° Divest From Violence—Move the Money Out of Weapons & Fossil Fuels: Take action to stop money from going into industries that manufacture war, weapons, nukes, and fossil fuels. Plan an action at a bank, public office, or university. Challenge them to reinvest in peace and planet. More info.

Racial Justice: Host a Racial Healing Circle and/or Train To Interrupt Harassment

° Help your community address racism that impacts Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian-American, Arab-American, and Jewish individuals. Host a Racial Healing Circle that allows personal stories to be shared and heard. Train your community in practical ways to intervene when someone is being targeted by hate. Your actions can focus on the issues your area is struggling with, such as welcoming migrants or addressing both antisemitism and Islamophobia. More info.

– – – – – –

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.

‘It’s Time To Give Peace Another Chance’: Thousands Gather for Israeli-Palestinian Peace Conference in Tel Aviv

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article from Portside

Two hundred and sixty-eight days into Israel’s war with Hamas, thousands of Israelis queued at the entrance Tel Aviv’s Menora Mivtachim Arena on Monday night, waiting to enter an event called “It’s Time: The Great Peace Conference.” The rally was organized by a confederation of some 50 organizations and individuals from Israel’s left and pro-peace camp, with a message that revolved around the arena’s LED screens: “It’s time to reach a deal. To stop the war. To make peace.”


Thousands of attendees shine their lights in solidarity at ‘The Great Peace Conference’ in Tel Aviv, Israel, Monday, July 1. (Haaretz)

The attendees represented a mixture of organizations, from Peace Now and Breaking the Silence to the anti-judicial overhaul protest groups. Some wore shirts reading “Bring them home now,” a call for a deal to return the hostages to Israel; others depicted watermelons, a stand-in for the Palestinian flag, which Israel’s police largely prohibit waving. A group of high schoolers in hijabs toted iced coffees, and a man in red and yellow Buddhist monk robes climbed over the barriers into the orchestra section to greet friends.

The speaker lineup was similarly diverse. It featured Israelis who lost family to Hamas’ onslaught in southern Israel and Palestinians who lost family to Israeli air strikes in Gaza. A woman in a Jewish headscarf recited a prayer for mothers beside her friend, an observant Muslim, who repeated it in Arabic.

Screens on either side of the stage provided English, Arabic and Hebrew subtitles for the speakers, and sign language interpreters translated the Hebrew and Arabic as it was spoken. In one video presented to the crowd, former generals and security officials endorsed peace as the only viable path to safety; in another, Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem gave their blessing to the event.

“Our mutual goal here is many different organizations and movement is to build together a peace camp in Israel,” Alon-Lee Green, co-director of Standing Together, one of the groups that organized the conference, told Haaretz. “I’m not even saying to rebuild. I’m talking about building from this from the beginning – a peace camp that is grounded in reality. And in reality, millions of Palestinians are living under violent military control.

“Millions of Jews are living with no safety, not just in the south and the north; it is unsafe for people to imagine that they’ll keep living on this land. And in this reality, we also need to recognize the hegemony, and the hegemony is of the Israeli government, the Israeli military, and we must be able to look at it and to face it. So what we’re trying to do is to build a new camp in the Israeli society, a peace camp that is equal for Palestinians and Jews, and a peace camp that is courageous enough to not do the mistakes of the ones of the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s.”

Maoz Inon, whose parents were killed in the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, was one of the key organizers of the rally. “On my journey, I learned that hope isn’t something you lose, or something you find, or something that you wait for until it finds you. Hope is something you make,” he told the crowd.

Rula Hardal, a Palestinian from Peki’in who now lives in Ramallah, presented a dire forecast: She said that she and the Jewish activists she shared the stage with may have different opinions on particular issues, but they have a commonality. “We all share the same space between the Jordan River and the sea, that we, Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs, call a homeland,” she said “But this homeland is bleeding. Spirits of vengeance and bloodshed hover over it, and if we don’t stop it now, we’ll all be on the way to collective suicide.”

The event also made room for up-and-coming leadership, bringing young activists to the stage. One was Yanal Jabarin, a journalist from Jerusalem, who recounted his harrowing experience in January at a right-wing rally calling for the resettlement of Gaza.

He told Haaretz that this event is something of an antidote to the messaging coming from the far-right government. “In this show of force we have here, the thousands of people who came here, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is on ‘the day after,’ or whether you believe in two states or one, we just have to say that there’s a side that stands against all of this fascism and all of this racism and messages about transferring the Palestinian people anywhere.”

Another young leader was Josh Drill, an expat from New Jersey who found his way to activism after serving as an IDF officer in Hebron. “The amount of injustice and suffering from so many sides, and from so many different perspectives, really pushed me to understand that I’m going to be a part of this peace movement that’s going to change the reality on the ground,” he told Haaretz.

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(article continued from left column)

“We cannot accept this cycle of bloodshed, we cannot accept the current reality. It’s just not livable for anyone. And I think that the clear understanding that the Israelis and Palestinians are here to stay, no one is going anywhere. We need to understand how we can live amongst ourselves as Israelis, and also Israelis and Palestinians. Because if we don’t, the cycle of bloodshed will just continue and more lives will be lost.”

Elana Kaminka spoke of her son, Yannai, who was killed by Hamas terrorists on October 7 while protecting his soldiers as a platoon commander at the Zikim Base. “We have three more children, and the way that things are going now, and that people want to continue living in a consistent state of war, isn’t acceptable to us,” she said backstage. “We lost one son, we understand the pain that that involves. And for my other three children, I don’t accept that there’s no other option, that there’s no other alternative. I refuse to accept that, and I don’t accept it for Palestinians, and I don’t accept it for Israelis, we all deserve a better future.”

In speeches and private discussions, particular themes and messages reemerged. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a claim to the land, and must find ways to live with each other upon it; there must be a sea change in Israeli and Palestinian society’s perception of peace, security, self-determination and the other; enough of our parents, children and friends have died to this cycle of violence.

“War isn’t a law of nature – it is a human choice,” said Prof. Yuval Noah Harari n his keynote speech. “And at any moment, it is possible to make a different choice, and start to make peace. True, we have tried to make peace in the past, and we weren’t good at it. So what? We haven’t been that good at making war, either, which doesn’t prevent us from making another one, and another one. All these wars have led us to the abyss. It’s time to give peace another chance.”

Despite the roaring cheers of the crowd, something felt a bit empty. It is not the stadium, whose seats were almost fully booked, but perhaps the fact that it was in a stadium, an enclosed room, in the first place. The participants had all bought tickets; they were a choir being preached to. “It’s an event for us, to make us feel good,” one girl told another in the stairwell. “To make us feel like we’re on the right side.”

When asked about this, Jabarin said that it seems the organizers had already considered this aspect. “It’s going to be livestreamed and there’s a lot of media here, so any message spoken here will make its way to people around the world, not just in Israel, so it’ll have an impact.” And, he added, although the audience belongs mostly to the left, Israel’s left has long been fractured – something that has cost it elections.

“There’s a broad spectrum of people [here], between Balad voters for the most left-wing Palestinian, [Israeli leftist party] Hadash, even the National Unity Party and Benny Gantz. There’s a big chance that we have something in common, this whole audience. So it’s important for us to work together as a united community on ‘the day after’ and not argue over petty things, because that’s what we’ve been arguing over for 70 years. Now is the time, because we see that the other side is already organized. It knows what it wants. We also need to know what we want, and we need to work together.”

After about three hours of speakers and musical guests, the attendees started to make their ways out of the arena. Ibrahim Abu Ahmad, one of the hosts of the Third Narrative podcast, lingered to talk to friends. “I think it was sort of a support group to all of us to know that we’re not alone,” he said of the conference, which he described as beautiful and moving. “But maybe the next step will be to be in the masses, to not just say it in a closed auditorium, but to go and call it out on the streets to the entire country.”

He added that in the 1990s, about two thirds of both the Israeli and Palestinian populations believed in peace – but that fraction is down to less than a third. “We need to continue and push it more and more and more,” he said.

“I always say that these people didn’t vanish, they didn’t all die, they didn’t disappear. They lost hope. And if they lost hope, they can regain hope, and new people can also gain hope. And that happened right after the First Intifada, when everybody thought that there was never going to be peace out of nowhere. Somehow, we started to talk about peace. So we can do that again,” Abu Ahmad said.

“But maybe this time, not to let the extremists take control because back then they did everything they can to prevent peace. And unfortunately, they succeeded. We saw the worst terror attacks at the time in the 90s during Oslo and you know, one radical Israeli killed the Israeli prime minister. Peace died, then we can’t let that happen again.”

– – – – – –

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.

‘Glimmer of Hope’ as UN Security Council Approves Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article by Brett Wilkins from Common Dreams

In a move that boosts the three-phase plan announced by President Joe Biden late last month, the United Nations Security Council on Monday voted 14-0—with permanent member Russia abstaining—in favor of a U.S.-sponsored resolution for a cease-fire in Gaza.


The ambassadors of the United Kingdom, United States, and Algeria raise their hands to vote in favor of a United Nations Security Council resolution for a cease-fire in Gaza in New York on June 10, 2024. (Photo: Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)

Russia chose not to exercise its power to veto the resolution, which urges Israel and Hamas to “fully implement its terms without delay and without condition.”

Responding to the vote, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement that “although the Biden administration should have allowed the U.N. Security Council to pass a permanent cease-fire resolution many months and many slaughtered Palestinians ago, we welcome today’s development as a positive and long overdue step toward ending the genocide.”

“The Biden administration must now use American leverage to force [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to agree to a permanent cease-fire so that the massacres of Palestinian civilians can end, all hostages and political prisoners can safely go free, international tribunals can begin holding those responsible for war crimes accountable, and the world can finally begin pursuing a credible end to the illegal occupation of Palestine that has fomented decades of injustice and oppression.”

As U.N. News explained:

Phase one includes an “immediate, full, and complete cease-fire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, and the exchange of Palestinian prisoners.”

It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from “populated areas” of Gaza, the return of Palestinians to their homes and neighborhoods throughout the enclave, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale.

Phase two would see a permanent end to hostilities “in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.”

In phase three, “a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza” would begin and the remains of any deceased hostages still in the strip would be returned to Israel.”

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(article continued from left column)

The council also underlined the proposal’s provision that if negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the cease-fire will continue as long as negotiations continue.

“The only way to end this cycle of violence and build a durable peace is through a political settlement,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—who vetoed several previous Security Council cease-fire resolutions— said following Monday’s vote.

The Biden administration has provided Israel with billions of dollars in military aid, arms and ammunition sales, and diplomatic cover.

In a statement, Hamas—which led the October 7 attack on Israel that left more than 1,100 people dead and over 240 others taken hostage—welcomed the resolution’s passage and affirmed  its willingness “to enter into indirect negotiations on the implementation of these principles.”

However, Reut Shapir Ben-Naftaly, Israel’s representative at the U.N., said her country’s objectives in the war have not changed and vowed to keep fighting “until all of the hostages are returned and Hamas’ military capabilities are dismantled.”

“Israel will not engage in meaningless and endless negotiations which can be exploited by Hamas as a means to stall for time,” she added.

According to Palestinian and international agencies, at least 37,124 Palestinians—mostly women and children—have been killed by Israeli forces during the 248-day Gaza onslaught, which is the subject of an International Criminal Court genocide case  brought by South Africa and supported by more than 30 nations and regional blocs. Nearly 85,000 Palestinians have also been injured. At least 11,000 other Palestinians are missing and believed buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out buildings.

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan is seeking  arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders for alleged crimes including extermination.

Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama said  after Monday’s vote that “as a free and dignified people, the Palestinians will never accept living under occupation. They will never abdicate their fight for liberation.”

“This text is not perfect, but it offers a glimmer of hope to the Palestinians as the alternative is continued killing and suffering,” he added. “We voted for this text to give diplomacy a chance. It is time to halt the killing.”

The Security Council resolution’s passage follows last month’s vote by the U.N. General Assembly to recognize Palestinian statehood—a move supported  by 143 members of the World Body but vehemently opposed by Israel and the U.S. Only nine nations voted against recognizing Palestine as an independent state.

– – – – – –

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.

Advances by the anti-war left in Israel: Interview with Uri Weltmann

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article by Federico Fuentes in Nueva Sociedad, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (translated by CPNN)

Standing Together is an Israeli Jewish-Arab social movement against racism and occupation and for equality and social justice. In this interview, Uri Weltmann, national organizer for Standing Together, talks about the growing peace movement in Israel, how activists are confronting far-right extremists who are trying to block humanitarian aid from reaching the Gaza Strip, and recent electoral advances of the left.

How has the peace movement within Israel evolved since October 7? Is it changing public opinion and counteracting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war efforts? What role does Standing Together play within the movement?

After October 7, the Israeli police limited people’s right to protest and exercise their civil liberties. It was almost impossible to get a permit to demonstrate. That’s why, throughout October and November, most of the actions undertaken by the peace movement – including Standing Together – were not necessarily marches, pickets or rallies. Instead, we hung street signs reading “Only peace will bring security” and organized emergency Jewish-Arab conferences in two dozen towns and cities across Israel, where we raised the demand for an alternative path to the government’s.

Only in December did the possibility of organizing larger protests arise. At the time, Standing Together brought together hundreds of people at a rally in Haifa on December 16 and another 1,000 people at a rally in Tel Aviv on December 28. In January, we held our first anti-war march, in which a coalition of more than 30 peace movements and organizations mobilized thousands of people.

The latest and largest demonstrations to date occurred in early May, featuring Palestinian and Jewish speakers and thousands of people marching in Tel Aviv under the slogan “Stop the war, bring back the hostages.” One of the speakers was Shachar Mor (Zahiru), whose nephew is held by Hamas in Gaza. He harshly criticized the cynicism of Netanyahu and his allies, and called for an end to the war to bring back the hostages. Avivit John, a survivor of the Kibbutz Beeri massacre, where many civilians were killed on October 7, told the crowd that although he had lost friends and family in the Hamas attack, he did not want us, as a society, to also lose our humanity. He called for an end to the war, recognition of the shared humanity of Israelis and Palestinians and the return of the hostages.

Along with the protests organized by the peace movement, there has also been a broader protest movement demanding the return of the hostages and which, over time, has taken an explicitly anti-war line. In the first months after October 7, family and friends of the hostages organized demonstrations to raise awareness about their plight, with the aim of putting pressure on the government. However, two months ago, this movement took a left turn by linking up with anti-Netanyahu organizations and publicly announcing that they had concluded that Netanyahu and his government were an obstacle to a ceasefire agreement that could facilitate the release of the hostages. Instead, they said, what is needed is a mass movement to force out the government and hold early elections.

A few weeks ago, when negotiations between Israel and Hamas seemed on the verge of reaching an agreement, the protest movement openly declared itself in favor of ending the war in exchange for the return of the hostages. They held one of their massive Saturday protests in Tel Aviv – attended by tens of thousands of people – under the slogan “Hostages, not Rafah”, and popularized the chant “Kulam Tmurat Kulam” (Hebrew for “[Liberation] of all of them, in exchange for all of them”), a call for the release of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails in exchange for the release of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

This broad protest movement has changed the political climate within Israel: the right-wing and far-right parties that make up Netanyahu’s coalition are losing ground among the population. Although they obtained 64 of the 120 seats in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) in the November 2022 elections, according to the latest polls today they would only win between 45 and 52 seats. This poses a problem for Netanyahu, as it not only means that he would be removed from office, but that his corruption trial would be resumed and he could possibly end up in jail. So he has both a political and a personal interest in a long, extended war against Gaza, as his far-right coalition partners demand. He knows that a hostage deal will most likely mean the end of the war. And that the end of the war means the dismantling of his coalition government and the calling of early elections, with a consequent political defeat and the possible loss of his personal freedom. It is this assessment that has led the broad protest movement calling for the return of the hostages to realize that Netanyahu is an obstacle that must be removed and not merely an interested party that must be convinced.

Members of Standing Together have intervened in these mass protests – in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Beer Sheva, Kfar Sava, Karmiel and elsewhere – insisting that the safe return of the hostages must be accompanied by ending the war and the massacres of innocent civilians in Gaza. Furthermore, our message is that the long-term security of both peoples will not be achieved through war, occupation and siege. On the contrary, we demand an end to the occupation and a peace between Israel and Palestine that recognizes the right of everyone to live in freedom, security and independence. There are millions of Israeli Jews in our country and none of them are going to leave. There are also millions of Palestinians in our country and none of them are going to leave. This must be the starting point of our politics if we want to imagine a future of justice, liberation and security.

Standing Together formed the Humanitarian Guard to counter far-right attempts to block aid convoys heading to Gaza. What can you tell us about this initiative?

In mid-May, images and videos drew attention of violent and extremist settlers, known as The Young People of the Hill, attacking trucks at the Tarqumia checkpoint – the main border crossing connecting occupied Palestinian territory in the West Bank with Israel – carrying food and other humanitarian aid to the besieged Gaza Strip. The Palestinian truck drivers were beaten and hospitalized, the bags of flour and wheat were destroyed, and the trucks were set on fire. These violent attacks received local and international media attention, especially because they occurred in front of Israeli soldiers and police who did nothing to prevent them.

(article continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish version.)

Question related to this article:

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(article continued from left column)

In response, Standing Together announced the formation of the Humanitarian Guard, an initiative to bring together peace activists from across Israel to act as a physical barrier between extremist settlers and the trucks, document what was happening, and force the police to intervene. . To date, more than 900 people have signed up to volunteer for this initiative. Every day, dozens of people flock from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to the checkpoint. Our protective presence at the Tarqumia checkpoint has allowed the safe passage of hundreds of trucks during the first two weeks, delivering tons of food to the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, where a growing famine and humanitarian catastrophe is occurring. .

The first day I was there, the police were forced to move the settlers away and allow the trucks to pass, whose drivers honked their horns in support. The settlers seemed visibly upset by our presence and the fact that we outnumbered them. They abandoned the checkpoint, but we learned from their WhatsApp group that they were regrouping on the road to attack the trucks before they reached the checkpoint. When we reached the intersection where they were, we found them looting a truck, destroying packages of food and throwing it on the side of the road. Only when we arrived did the police reluctantly move them aside, allowing the wrecked truck to drive away. We collected the food to put it on the next trucks. We also documented settler attacks and filed complaints, which led to the police arresting some of them.

We consider the Humanitarian Guard as both a way of expressing solidarity with the people of the Gaza Strip and waging a fight for the character of our society: we refuse to allow Israeli society to be modeled after the moral frameworks of the fanatics of extreme right that dehumanize Palestinians and promote a politics of death. Standing Together, as a movement, is rooted within Israeli society, with all its complexities, and works to create changes in public opinion and organize the Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel to build a new majority within our society, one that allows us to move towards peace, equality and social and climate justice.

The United Nations (UN) recently voted to elevate Palestine’s status in that organization, while some European governments have officially recognized the Palestinian state. The United States has even refused to supply bombs to Israel to attack Rafah. Within Israel, is there a feeling that international support is being lost? What impact does this have on public opinion about the government?

The UN vote to give more rights to the Palestinians, as well as the decision by Spain, Norway and Ireland to formally recognize the Palestinian state, are important diplomatic steps to reinforce the international legitimacy of the struggle for liberation and the right to a Palestinian state. I am convinced – and there is a broad international consensus on this matter – that the UN resolutions constitute the best basis to allow the Palestinians to achieve their right to national self-determination, through the establishment of an independent State with East Jerusalem as its capital and the Green Line (the border before June 4, 1967) as the border between the States of Palestine and Israel. Such a peace agreement would have to include the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law; a fair and consensual solution for Palestinian refugees based on UN resolutions; the demolition of the so-called Separation Wall built in the early 2000s; and the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, including the more than 3,600 “administrative detainees” who remain in jail without charge, trial or conviction, in some cases for many years.

Within Israel, the mainstream media presents this shift in foreign public opinion and diplomatic developments as supposedly directed against all Israelis. The Israeli political class tries to identify the government and the State with ordinary people and presents the international criticism directed against the actions of the Netanyahu government in Rafah as criticism directed against all Israeli citizens, while the accusations of war crimes against Netanyahu and others in high positions are presented as accusations directed against all Israelis. This has the effect of consolidating people around Netanyahu’s government, so that even people who criticize his actions or are looking for a political alternative side with him against the Hague court.

This demonstrates the importance of creating a space within Israeli society to criticize the policies of the political establishment. If all the criticism is external, or if the criticism confuses the people with the government, the effect will be to close, rather than widen, the gap between the majority of the people and the current leaders.

In the midst of the war, local elections were held in which, for the first time, Standing Together gained representation in the municipal councils of Tel Aviv and Haifa. What can you tell us about these results and their importance for the construction of a new left in Israel?

On February 27, local elections were held in Israel. Initially scheduled for October, they were postponed due to the war. These elections, held every five years, determine the composition of the municipal councils. In the months prior to the elections, two new urban movements, both ideologically related to Standing Together, emerged in Tel Aviv and Haifa to compete in those elections.

In Tel Aviv, the local Purple City movement, led by Standing Together national leadership member Itamar Avneri, brings together a majority coalition of urban youth around housing and climate justice issues. In September, he joined with other left-wing sectors, such as the Communist Party, a local environmental movement and some community activists to form an electoral coalition called La Ciudad Somos Todos. This coalition obtained 14,882 votes (7.6%) in the elections and won 3 of the 31 municipal council seats. Avneri, who was the third candidate on the coalition’s list, was elected as a councillor.

In Haifa, the local City Majority movement, led by Sally Abed, from the national leadership of Standing Together, participated in the elections and obtained 3,451 votes (3%), which allowed Abed to be elected as a councilor. It was the first time that a Palestinian woman headed a list for the Haifa municipal council. The list also included as a candidate Orwa Adam, an openly gay Palestinian activist, something unprecedented in Israeli electoral history.

Both lists were joint Jewish-Arab movements and, although organisationally, legally and financially independent of Standing Together – as electoral laws require – both were publicly recognized as consistent with our political “mark”. These successful experiences of electoral movements organized from below are important for the construction of a new popular and viable left in Israel with roots in our communities, an internationalist orientation and grounded in socialist values. In the coming years, this is the main challenge facing all of us who hope to see a combative left in Israel capable of confronting the dominant institutional hegemony and building power around an alternative political project.

– – – – – –

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.

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press survey and analysis by CPNN

For many years now, CPNN has carried a discussion page on this question, Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

In his 1986 book, The Overburdened Economy, the economist Llloyd J. Dumas argued that in the long run military spending will undermine the ability of the economy to function efficiently; and cause a general decline in economic wellbeing. This is because it does not contribute to the standard of living as consumer goods do, or to the economy’s capacity to produce standard-of-living goods and services in the future, as producer goods do.

This analysis is repeated in his 2005 contribution to a symposium on The Political Economy of Military Spending.

Recent news articles by financial specialists suggest that the Dumas prediction is now coming true, in the form of the ballooning national debt of the United States.


The national debt based on data from the US Department of the Treasury Fiscal Service (click on image to enlarge)

I On May 2, The Economist ran an article with the headline “America’s reckless borrowing is a danger to its economy—and the world’s; Without good luck or a painful adjustment, the only way out will be to let inflation rip.” It blames “the costs of wars, a global financial crisis and pandemic, unfunded tax cuts and stimulus programmes.”

On May 1, Fortune Magazine summarized a number of financial sources as follows:

“The nation’s debt, currently over $34 trillion, is rampantly growing as U.S. lawmakers have been unable to agree to long-term budget reforms that could tame it. 

“Officials from several institutions warn a tipping point is near and it will only get worse if it snowballs into a crisis. The national debt is currently almost the same size as the entire U.S. economy, which is roughly $27.3 trillion, according to a Council on Foreign Relations report, and is on track to double within the next thirty years. 

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

“In the last few months, officials at several institutions including the International Monetary Fund, Congressional Budget Office and banking giant Goldman Sachs  Group have cautioned that the country’s skyrocketing debt is a big problem–literally bigger than ever before–and some fear similar market chaos  that derailed former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss’ economy when she was in office in 2022.  . .

“In the U.S., IMF officials have warned that public spending and borrowing will “overheat” the country’s economy, while pushing up funding costs  in the rest of the world. Phillip Swagel, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said the country’s debt is on an “unprecedented” trajectory in an interview  with the Financial Times, and could risk a Truss-style economic crisis. John Waldron, the president and COO of Goldman Sachs, expressed a similar concern  at Semafor’s World Economic Summit on April 18

With the exception of the passing mention of “the costs of wars” in the Economist article, it is notable that military spending is not mentioned in the many articles quoted here, even though it is the largest contribution to the national debt. It is “forgotten” just as another recent Economist article headlines “Budgetary blindness – America’s fiscal outlook is disastrous, but forgotten.”

The Economist article refers to the fact that the debt problem is “forgotten” by the two main Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump. They continue to make the problem worse, as Biden increases military spending for the Ukraine, and Trump promises to reduce taxes on the rich.

Not mentioned are the positions of third party candidates Cornel West and Chase Oliver.

As reported in CPNN on April 6, Cornel West would address the debt problem by drastically cutting the military budget and instituting a wealth tax.>

And as reported in CPNN this week (May 29), Chase Oliver calls for “major cuts to the federal budget with an eye toward balancing the budget . . . and the closure of all overseas military bases and ending of military support to Israel and Ukraine.”

– – – – – –

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.

Manifesto: European mobilization against increasing militarization and wars

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Excerpts from the website of Nomilitarism translated by CPNN with English version of Manifesto received by email

On the occasion of the European elections on June 9, 2024, we are promoting a European mobilization against growing militarization and wars.

We have started with a Manifesto signed by a wide range of organizations, movements and groups.


The manifesto will be presented before the electoral campaign, at public events in each locality in front of significant buildings that each territorial assembly will decide, taking into account the target audience (public institutions, parties…) and the communicative capacity (photo, video…) for a good media coverage.

It is proposed to present it publicly in all possible towns on May 23 in the morning, as a common date
.
The manifesto can also be sent to political parties, parliaments and national and European governments by mail or fax, registered as a petition and, of course, disseminated through the networks starting on May 23.

Territorial organizations and assemblies can take other actions to support the campaign.

Manifesto

NO TO MILITARIZATION AND NO TO WAR
For a Europe of détente, peace, and shared security

For months now, European political leaders have been laying the groundwork to prepare us for war. Regardless of whether the risk for a large-scale conflict is in fact real or overstated, the continent’s economies are already shifting towards war-time public budgets, and the dire consequences of this are already being felt as the cost of living is becoming unaffordable for large segments of the European population.

History teaches us that progressive steps towards militarization always constitute a prelude to war, and for years they have been building a discursive framework that only serves to legitimize and justify it. In 2014, members of NATO all agreed to increase their respective defense budgets to at least 2% of their GDP. After the invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing genocide in Palestine, the political priorities of NATO and the EU have shifted towards boosting their countries’ spending on acquiring new weapons, reintroducing compulsory military service, financing the military industrial complex to produce more, and creating more funding streams to develop new, more lethal and autonomous prototypes.

The EU has been stoking fears of a possible Russian invasion of Europe to garner public support for its policy of rearmament and militarization. Military expenditures by EU member states reached €289.3 billion in 2023, which represented an increase of more than 21.3 % since 2022. Adding EU community spending (€7.537 billion) and the expenditures of the United Kingdom and Norway (€77.323 billion), total military spending amounts to €374 billion, the second largest in the world, only behind the United States, and nearly four times that of Russia (€100 billion).

The European Union has been implementing a policy of military
deterrence that is proving absurd: it seeks to showcase its greater power and destructive capabilities to the adversary in order to dissuade any attack, but this self-destructive policy will inevitably lead to tensions escalating, an arms race, and a bellicose spiral, with the looming threat of a nuclear war, the catastrophic consequences being the destruction of life on the planet several times
over.

On June 9th, European elections will be held, and we consider it an opportunity to raise our demands to the political forces participating. This is crucial; either we choose to promote policies of peace, détente, and shared security, or we will end up in a militaristic escalation. Increasing defense spending means reducing resources to counter climate change, reduce inequalities and improve health, gender equity, harmonize salaries, or uphold the rights of all citizens.

(Article continued in right column)

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

Question related to this article:

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Article continued from left column)

For all these reasons, the signing organizations propose:

● To advocate for détente, moving away from NATO’s threatening rhetoric and arms spirals, activating disarmament, opening the doors to dialogue and mutual trust with the aim of de-escalating conflicts through the use of diplomacy, negotiation, cooperation, and non-violence. These policies should lead to the end of armed violence in Ukraine, Palestine, and other places in the world. It is necessary to resume the commitment of the 1990s to a common and shared security without exclusions in Europe.

● To promote a foreign policy oriented towards peace, focused on human security, through instruments such as mediation,
diplomacy, defense of human rights, or civil intervention in
conflicts in order to build peace.

● To promote spaces for dialogue among social movements,
academics, and politicians aimed at developing proposals for
peace policies, civilian peace corps, civil defense, and unarmed security. Enhancing human and economic resources for the military-industrial conversion to civilian productive sectors of interest.

● To actively promote environmental peace grounded in scientific principles, with clear and secure decarbonization policies that minimize and repair the damages that will affect future generations. To promote policies that impact the improvement of people’s daily lives.

● To promote a human security policy focused on people’s needs, with their involvement and participation.

Initial signatories:

° Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau
° Fundipau
° Institut NOVACT de Noviolència
° UNIPAU
° Lafede.cat – organitzacions per a la justícia global
Coordinadora d’ONG Solidàries de les comarques gironines i l’Alt Maresme,
° Coordinadora d’ONG pel Desenvolupament, la Defensa dels Drets Humans i la Pau de Tarragona
° Campanya Aturemlesguerres.cat
° Plataforma Desmilitaritzem l’Educació de Catalunya
° Fundació Carta de la Pau dirigida a l’ONU
° Justícia i Pau
° Federació de la Xarxa de Cooperació al Desenvolupament del Sud de Catalunya
° Dones x Dones
° CIEMEN
° Alternativa Antimilitarista MOC/ADNV Canarias
° Ecologistas en Acción
° Moviment d’Objecció de Consciència MOC-València
° Asamblea Antimilitarista de Madrid
° Coordinadora de ONGD del Principado de Asturias
° Plataforma Aturem la Guerra
° Plataforma Catalunya per la pau
° WILPF (Liga Internacional de Mujeres por la Paz y la Libertad)
° Llegat Jaume Botey i Vallès
° Coordinadora Valenciana de ONGD
° Comisión General Justicia y Paz
° Coordinadora Galega de ONGD
° Consell d’Associacions de Barcelona
° Ca la Dona
° Alternativas Noviolentas
° Mujeres de Negro contra la Guerra – Madrid
° Escola de Cultura de Pau de la UAB
° AIPAZ – Asociación Española de Investigación para la Paz
° Fundación Cultura de Paz
° Movimiento Por la Paz -MPDL-
° Comunitat Palestina de Catalunya
° Prou Complicitat amb Israel
° Campanya per la fi del Comerç d’armes amb Israel
° UGT de Catalunya
° CCOO de Catalunya
° Òmnium Cultural

Sign the Manifesto

– – – – – –

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.