Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

US: Progressive Caucus Announces Opposition to ‘Wasteful, Bloated’ $740 Billion Pentagon Budget Proposal

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A article by Jake Johnson from Common Dreams (reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus said Sunday that it will formally oppose the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 unless “significant action” is taken to reduce the bill’s proposed Pentagon outlay.


Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks during an oversight hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill February 8, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Rubber-stamping a record $740 billion for the Pentagon shortchanges millions of families trying to get by in this crisis,” tweeted the CPC, which has more than 90 members. “Enhanced unemployment benefits expire in less than two weeks. The federal eviction moratorium expires in six days.”

“Congress should be focused on addressing these urgent crises,” the CPC added, “not passing a wasteful, bloated $740 billion defense bill to line the pockets of defense contractors.”

(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)

Along with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), CPC co-chairs Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) are advocating the passage of an NDAA amendment that would cut the proposed Pentagon budget by 10%—$74 billion—and redirect the savings toward healthcare, housing, and education in poor communities.

“This 10% cut is eminently doable and reasonable,” Jayapal said  during an event late last month. “But it’s not going to be easy… As progressives, it is our job to redefine and reimagine what it is to be strong. Strong means an end to endless wars and a return to robust diplomacy and international coalition building.”

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are co-sponsoring a companion amendment in the Senate. In a speech on the Senate floor last month, Sanders described the proposed 10% cut as a “modest” way to begin shifting U.S. spending priorities away from endless war and toward urgent domestic concerns.

With the amendment expected to receive a vote this coming week, Sanders wrote in an email to supporters Sunday that “the time is now to cut military spending and use that money for human needs.”

“How can it be that we have enough to spend more on defense than the next eleven countries combined, but we don’t have enough to make sure every American child has a roof over their head and enough food to eat?” Sanders wrote. “A great nation is not judged by the size of its military budget, it is judged by how well it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

The growing use of weaponised drones risks destabilising global peace and security

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from UN News

The growing use of weaponised drones risks destabilising global peace and security and creating a “drone power club” among nations, that face no effective accountability for deploying them as part of their “war on terror”, a senior UN-appointed independent rights expert said on Thursday.

At the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that more than 100 countries have military drones and more than a third are thought to possess the largest and deadliest autonomous weapons.

‘No red lines’ in drone warfare?

States who used them on the grounds of self-defence, “defined in a very elastic fashion” against purported terrorists, risked creating a situation where “there will be no red lines really”, she told journalists later.

“As more Government and non-State actors acquire armed drones and use them for targeted killing, there is a clear danger that war will come to be seen as normal rather than the opposite of peace,” Ms. Callamard said. “War is at risk of being normalized as a necessary companion to peace, and not its opposite.”

Appealing for greater regulation of the weapons, and lending her support to calls for a UN-led forum to discuss the deployment of drones specifically, the Special Rapporteur insisted that their growing use increased the danger of a “global conflagration”.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Drones (unmanned bombers), Should they be outlawed?

(Article continued from left column)

‘Influential States’ rewriting the rules

Such a move was necessary because “a small number of rather influential States” had sought to reinterpret the law of self-defence under Article  51 of the UN Charter, she explained.

She urged UN Security Council to meet in formal session to review and debate all such self-defence claim, before recommending that the High Commissioner for Human Rights should produce an annual report on drone strikes casualties for the Human Rights Council.

There was now the “very real prospect that States may opt to ‘strategically’ eliminate high-ranking military officials outside the context of a ‘known’ war”, she explained, and that they might seek to justify the killing “on the grounds of necessity – not imminence” as the target was classified as a “terrorist who posed a potential, undefined, future threat”.

Iranian general’s chilling death

In particular, she cited the killing by drone strike in Iraq of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on 3 January for which the United States claimed responsibility and which she insisted was a violation of the UN Charter.

“Targeted killings until very recently to drones had been limited to non-state actors,” she told journalists. Until, for the first time in January 2020, a State armed drone targeted a high-level official of a foreign State and did so on the territory of a third State.”

Drone strikes were the preferred option for “decision makers and military alike for their relative efficiency, effectiveness, adaptability, acceptability, deniability, and political gain”, the rights expert maintained.

But she noted that their benefits were as “illusory” as the “myth of a surgical strike”. 

Because of the current absence of effective oversight, it was “practically impossible to know whether a person(s) killed in a drone strike was, in fact, a lawful target”, Ms. Callamard said, adding that harm to civilian populations, including deaths, injuries and trauma, was likely largely under-reported.   

(Thank you to Phyllis Kotite, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, Uncategorized, United Nations,

Dutch pension fund divests from two Israeli banks over settlements’ finances

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from WAFA, Palestinian News and Info Agency

The ABP, the largest pension fund in the Netherlands, has decided to divest from Israeli banks, Hapoalim and Leumi, for their finance of construction projects in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, according to a statement attributed to the ABP’s spokesperson.

The spokesperson reportedly pointed out that the location where companies operate plays a role in investment appraisals and criteria, which include revenue, costs, risks, and sustainability.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

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

Divestment: is it an effective tool to promote sustainable development?

(continued from left column)

“We expect companies operating in areas with high risk of human rights violations to have a human rights policy,” said the spokesperson.

In January 2014, PGGM, the country’s second largest pension administrator, announced the divestment from five Israeli banks, citing their activities in the illegal Israeli settlements built in the West Bank.

The Netherlands and the European Union consider Israeli settlements as illegal.
Last April, the European Union issued a warning against the Israeli government’s intention to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, saying that such a move “would constitute a serious violation of international law.”

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said the 27-member bloc does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Palestinian territory and that it will “continue to closely monitor the situation and its broader implications, and will act accordingly.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

The Elders urge European leaders to stand firm on Israeli annexation threats

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from The Elders

The Elders have called on European leaders to maintain their resolve against Israel’s plans to annex swathes of the West Bank, and to insist that any such moves would have negative political and economic consequences for bilateral relations.

The absence of any direct military and legal moves towards annexation on 1 July – the deadline unilaterally declared by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu – should not be taken as grounds for complacency. Annexation of any part of the West Bank, including illegal settlement blocs, would constitute a flagrant breach of international law.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

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

(continued from left column)

In letters to French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, The Elders underscored the damage annexation would cause not only to any hopes of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also to global respect for the rule of law.

Annexation “is fundamentally contrary to the long term interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. [It] will not dampen future Palestinian demands for rights and self-determination, but destroying hopes in a two-state compromise will increase the risks of future violence in one of the most combustible areas in the world”, the Elders warned in their appeal to Europe’s leaders.

They called on the EU leaders to consider suspending the bloc’s Association Agreement with Israel if annexation does go ahead in any form, and recalled the UK’s historical and abiding responsibility to the region as the colonial Mandate holder in pre-1948 Palestine.

The Elders also reiterated their support for human rights defenders and civil society activists in Israel and Palestine, whose voices need to be protected and amplified at this challenging time.

[Editors’s note: The Elders is an international non-governmental organisation of public figures noted as elder statesmen, peace activists, and human rights advocates, who were brought together by Nelson Mandela in 2007.  They have included Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Graça Machel, Mary Robinson, Ban Ki-Moon, Juan Manuel Santos and Kofi Annan, among others.]

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Oppostion to Israel’s proposed annexation of occupied Palestinian territory

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter from Members of US Congress

Despite lack of attention by the commercial media, described by Jan Oberg, Israel’s proposed annexation of occupied Palestinian territory has been opposed by 100 US organizations and by the following letter by members of the US Congress.


Palestinians are gathering in Gaza City and occupied West Bank for demonstrations against the Israeli plan [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]

June 30, 2020

To: The Honorable Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Pompeo:

We write to you to express our deep concern over the planned annexation of occupied Palestinian territory by the government of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said annexation could begin as early as July 1, 2020. Should the Israeli government move forward with these plans, they would actively harm prospects for a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians can live with full equality, human rights and dignity, and would lay the groundwork for Israel becoming an apartheid state, as your predecessor John Kerry warned in 2014.We call on you to take all necessary action available to reverse course on this proposal, which will cause more tension and conflict for decades to come. While the full scope and details of the plan are not yet public, Palestinians have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of annexation, and have understandably refused to participate in a process that is not grounded in a recognition of their national rights under international law.

Leading human rights experts warn that annexing parts of the West Bank will perpetuate and entrench human rights violations against the Palestinian people, including limitations on freedom of movement, mass expropriation of privately-owned Palestinian land, further expansion of illegal settlements, continued demolitions of Palestinian homes, and a loss of Palestinian control over their natural resources.

Furthermore, Israel has stated it will not grant citizenship to Palestinians living in annexed territory or to the many more Palestinians living in the isolated enclaves that Israel will opt not to annex, formalizing in law the separate and unequal treatment of the two populations and paving the path toward an apartheid system. Indeed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 has stated that it would “crystalize a 21st century apartheid, leaving in its wake the demise of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.”

Of further concern, Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law. Annexation is prohibited by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party. Forty-seven of the independent Special Procedures mandates appointed by the Human Rights Council at the United Nations reaffirm this. Further, already existing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, amount to a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court because Israel, as the Occupying Power, is prohibited from transferring, either directly or indirectly, parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

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

Israel/Palestine, is the situation like South Africa?

(continued from left column)

Annexation is specifically prohibited because it incites armed conflict, political and economic instability, systematic human rights abuses, and, most importantly, legitimizes the erasure ofidentity. There is no question that the acre by acre de facto annexation since 1967 for the purpose of new Israeli settlements is a blatant attempt to suppress Palestinian identity and nationhood.

Unilateral annexation in the West Bank is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy and human rights that the United States of America is supposed to stand for. At a time when the American people are taking to the streets to demand justice for all in our own country, there is no question but that such an action would alienate many U.S. lawmakers and citizens. Members of Congress should not be expected to support an undemocratic system in which Israel would permanently rule over a Palestinian people denied self-determination or equal rights.

Should the Israeli government continue down this path, we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.

The United States must remain committed to a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians live with full rights, dignity, and democracy. This means that we do not support policies that would prevent that future, as annexation would. We therefore urge you to make clear to the Israeli government that such a move is unacceptable.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Representative Pramila Jayapal

Representative Betty McCollum

Senator Bernard Sanders

Representative Rashida Tlaib

Representative Ayanna Pressley

Representative André Carson

Representative Jesús G. “Chuy” García.

Representative Bobby Rush

Representative Raul Grijalva

Representative Ilhan Omar

Representative Danny Davis

Representative Nydia Velázquez

(Thank you to Phyllis Kotite, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast, North America,

USA: The Failure of Police Use of Force Policies to Meet Fundamental International Human Rights Law and Standards

. HUMAN RIGHTS . .

Introduction and Conclusion from a report by the University of Chicago Law School – International Human Rights Clinic

Introduction

This Report is being published in the midst of a long series of horrifying incidents of police abuse of power in the United States. The deaths of George Floyd, Lacquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, Breonna Taylor and many others, have echoed throughout the communities of this nation and prompted protests across the country. The video and testimonies from these incidents provide grim illustrations of the power law enforcement officers have over the people they are sworn to serve and protect, and the deadly consequences when they abuse that power.

Society vests law enforcement with the responsibility to protect public safety and enforce the law when necessary. For these reasons, and these reasons only, law enforcement officers are granted the immense power to use force, including lethal force. This authority – state sanctioned violence – necessarily comes with limits and obligations to ensure those who enforce the law do not abuse it. These limits and obligations require that police use their power in a manner that protects and serves the entire community that has vested them with this privilege. The exercise of this authority also requires accountability when abuses occur. Without accountability, state sanctioned violence is nothing but the exercise of arbitrary brute force, a common tool of tyrannical and despotic governments.

Yet, as endless reports and studies have indicated, the police in the United States do not always use their power in a manner that reflects the restraint, care and humility promised to its people. The many and terrible deaths of unarmed African Americans, the targeting of poor communities and communities of color, and the absence of a mandate to protect individuals from domestic violence, all sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States in the name of police discretion, have scarred many and raised questions of whether the police sufficiently serve their mandate.

Even as the evidence of criminality and misconduct permeates the news, drives thousands to the streets, and garners national outrage, the exact scope and scale of lethal use of force remains unknown. The United States does not count the number of lives lost nationally due to police use of force. And police departments vary as to how and whether data on officer use of force, including the discharge of police firearms and deaths, is collected and published. This absence of comprehensive reporting and publishing of data on police use of force severely limits our ability to see the full picture and to accurately evaluate police misconduct. It also constrains our ability to identify practices and institutional mechanisms in need of reform. The failure by states and the federal government to address this lack of transparency and accountability tells its own story and is, on its own, a cause for great concern.

The human rights of people living in the United States are profoundly affected by how law enforcement officials carry out their duties. Police use of force implicates the basic rights of every individual subject to this power – the rights to life, security of person, freedom from discrimination and equal protection of the laws. These rights, established following the atrocities of World War II in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, form the cornerstone of the human rights system. The challenge of managing police power is a global one. People in every country face the difficult and complex balance between granting police the discretion and resources needed to achieve their purpose, while holding them accountable when they abuse their power in violation of the human rights of the communities they serve.

To address this global challenge, the 193 member states of the United Nations, which include the United States, have developed principles and standards to constrain, direct and ensure the proper use of lethal force. These principles – legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability – have been developed and concretized in various forms in the international system, and have been articulated in resolutions by the U.N. General Assembly, rules by committees of experts, and findings by U.N. Special Procedure Mechanisms. These principles and the rules they establish represent the best global effort to consider how police discretion and accountability can contribute to a just and humane society that respects and protects the rights of all its individuals.

In the United States, some of these principles have been adopted and articulated by our courts and law makers. However, this country lacks a comprehensive and effective national legal framework that places specific conditions on the use of force and establishes mechanisms of accountability.5 While the Constitution sets some limits on the use of force, the standards set by the Supreme Court in its case law fall woefully short of meeting the international standards, and Congress has failed to take action to fill this critical gap in federal law.6 Due to the decentralized nature of law enforcement in the United States, and the failure of national leadership to set uniform, federal standards, the main restrictions on police use of force exist at the state and local level. State law and police departmental policies provide the principles and standards on use of force and the consequences for when that authority is abused.

(Report continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Where are police being trained in culture of peace?

(Report continued from left column)

While, in many states, legislation provides some direction on the use of force to police departments, research and data indicates that state laws have overwhelmingly failed to do so in an effective manner. In 2015, Amnesty International, USA released “Deadly Force: Police Use of Lethal Force in the United States,” evaluating state laws’ compliance with international human rights standards. Alarmingly, the report found that not a single state’s law fully complied.

This Report builds on Amnesty’s findings by examining the other main source of accountability for the use of force: police department policies. To capture a large portion of the population and a diverse set of contexts, this Report evaluates the police policies from the 20 largest cities in the United States during 2017 to 2018.7 These internal departmental policies provide the primary guidance to police officers on when and how they may use lethal force.8 They are intended as manuals for officers on how to execute their duties, written by police leadership and, for the most part, adopted by the governing police boards.9 These policies provide the substantive standards that officers are trained on and the principles that departments must operationalize. Policy violations trigger internal and sometimes external reviews and possible disciplinary measures.

While police policies vary, a use of force policy generally establishes the magnitude and nature of the threat that must exist, and the level of certainty police officers must have, to justify the use of lethal force.10 Some policies call for a gradual escalation of the use of force; some list a series of measures an officer must or should take before resorting to lethal force.11 They also prescribe what must happen after force has been used, who must be notified, and how an investigation unfolds.

This Report reviews and analyzes these policies to better understand how and whether police departments provide meaningful and effective direction to officers on the use of lethal force in a manner that respects the rights of the people they are charged to protect and serve. To evaluate use of force policies, authors developed and applied a grading system based on international law and standards on police lethal use of force. Through this evaluation, authors found that the policies in all 20 cities reviewed fail to meet international human rights law and standards. These use of force policies grant police undue discretion and insufficient guidance on when lethal force can be used, and they fail to establish strong enough accountability mechanisms.

Part I of this Report provides summary of findings and recommendations for the development of a robust mechanism to constrain police lethal use of force. Police departments across the country allow for the use of force in circumstances where there is no immediate threat to life, such as allowing exceptions for the capture of a fleeing suspect. And almost none of the city policies provide adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Part II presents the international law and standards governing police use of lethal force in the United States. It highlights the four main principles derived from these standards – legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability – and explains their application to police use of force policies.

Part III uses these four principles to analyze and grade the use of lethal force policies of the 20 largest U.S. cities. Like the laws of the 50 states, not a single policy fully complied with international human rights law and standards. In fact, some policies fell well below full compliance, for example, failing to require that lethal force only be used in response to the immediate threat of deadly force.

Ultimately, deep, structural reform of the United States’ law enforcement system is needed. The police in the United States kill more people than any of our peer nations.12 In a 24-day period in 2015, police in the United States shot more people than the police did in England and Wales in 24 years.13 By all measures, the current system is broken. As this Report demonstrates, the very laws and departmental policies that are meant to guide police officers on how to make the difficult, life and death decisions that are required of them, do not comply with human rights. Structural reform to end police killings of unarmed black and brown men and women must start in the police departments themselves with human rights-compliant use of force policies.

Conclusion

Not one of the police departments in the 20 largest cities in United States has a human rights compliant use of force policy. None of the policies are constrained by a state law that complies with human rights law and standards. And too many police departments allow the use of lethal force in response to a non-lethal threat, thereby sanctioning unnecessary and disproportionate use of force.

These policy failures have contributed to the tragic killings of unarmed black and brown men and women by police officers around the country. Ensuring police use of lethal force in the United States is constrained by international human rights law and standards requires a broad range of legal, institutional and practical measures, from a solid grounding in legislation, to a committed political and police leadership. Human rights compliant laws and police policies are an absolutely necessary component, but they alone cannot operationalize and make real the human rights law and standards embodied in the four core principles. Instead, law and policies provide the foundation on which a structure of reinforcing attitudes, practices and mechanisms must be built.

Making law and police policies more than just paper promises requires, among other things: comprehensive, effective and ongoing officer training; effective supervision and planning; robust corrective measures applied to officer misbehavior; independent and transparent investigating and reporting; disciplinary measures; and mechanisms with real independence, resources, power and will to provide accountability. Nevertheless, true structural transformation of law enforcement practices in the United States must begin with police policies that comply with international human rights law and standards.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Film From USA: Camden’s Turn: A Story of Police Reform in Progress

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A film from Not in our town, a movement to stop hate, racism and bullying, and build safe, inclusive communities for all.

Camden’s Turn is a documentary about a police department and a community in the process of transformation. As views of police and the communities they serve have become polarized across the country, Camden, NJ Police Chief Scott Thomson works to build relationships and calls on his officers “to shift from a warrior mentality to that of a guardian and community builder.”


Video of Camden’s Turn

The film follows Chief Thomson, his command staff and officers, as they work to implement community policing reforms in Camden County.

After the entire police force was laid off in 2012, Chief Thomson rebuilt the department and instituted a culture of community policing — incorporating de-escalation training, engaging officers in sports, school programs and community events, putting officers on bikes in neighborhoods and parks, and getting officers out of patrol cars and walking the beat.

(Article continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Where are police being trained in culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

Camden’s strategy was highlighted by President Obama’s national efforts to implement the recommendations outlined in the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. After years of mistrust, violent crime, high arrests rates and devastating poverty, the film looks at how things are starting to turn around in Camden. Crime rates are down, people feel safer, and jobs are coming back to the city. (29 minutes)

Guide for film

This guide is designed as a tool for law enforcement and community stakeholders to facilitate screenings and discussions of the 29-minute Camden’s Turn: A Story of Police Reform in Progress. The guide provides: discussion questions and tips for organizing internal law enforcement agency and community screenings; information about community-oriented policing; and supplemental resources. Used together, the film and guide can help agencies and community groups work together to help improve law enforcement-community relations and build collaborative public safety partnerships.

Download the guide here.

[Editor’s note: According to an article in CNN published on June 9, Camden dissolved its entire police department in 2012 because it was corrupted with the drug trade and replaced it with a new police force with “community-oriented policing.” “It starts from an officer’s first day: When a new recruit joins the force, they’re required to knock on the doors of homes in the neighborhood they’re assigned to patrol, he said. They introduce themselves and ask neighbors what needs improving.”]

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, EDUCATION FOR PEACE, North America

The Elders call for new Middle East peace plan to counter Israeli annexation threat

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. ,

A press release from The Elders

The Elders today called for new engagement from the international community to deliver a just outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and uphold international law in the face of plans by the new Israeli government to illegally annex swathes of the West Bank.


Photo: Dennis Jarvis / Flickr
Click on image to enlarge

A new initiative in the spirit of the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 is needed to bring both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as regional and international powers, into meaningful dialogue on the way forward. Existing multilateral mechanisms like the Quartet should be revitalised and potentially expanded to give a greater role to other powers in the region.

Conversely, The Elders warned that the annexation plans represent a unilateral repudiation of the two-state solution, and are opposed by most countries in the region and internationally. Annexation risks plunging the region into deeper turmoil, further fomenting bitterness and alienation among Palestinians, antagonising Israel’s neighbours and eroding the democratic and constitutional framework of the Jewish state.

Mary Robinson, Chair of The Elders and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said:

“The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians can only ever be solved by finding a solution that guarantees peace, security, rights and dignity to both peoples. Unilaterally seizing territory and ignoring international law achieves precisely the opposite. Such a move betrays both the interests of Israeli citizens and the ideals of the State’s founders.”

(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)

US support alone cannot deliver lasting success on the ground when the proposals announced by President Donald Trump in January have been comprehensively rejected by all strands of Palestinian leadership and Israel’s neighbours.

Jimmy Carter, Elder Emeritus and former President of the United States, said:

“If the joint mapping of Palestinian lands to be seized by the Israeli government continues, the standing of the United States in the international community will be further damaged. The West Bank belongs to Palestine, and any changes should be mutually agreed upon.”

Ban Ki-moon, Deputy Chair of The Elders and former Secretary-General of the United Nations, added:

“The principles of international law are the bedrock of our global order. They provide a framework for defending rights and exercising power that is crucial to all global challenges. Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank would not only be an act of aggressive folly, it would have a destructive influence on global rights and norms. I call on the whole world to speak out against this damaging agenda.”

The Elders welcomed the efforts of brave voices in Israeli civil society and Jewish diaspora groups who have opposed annexation, and encouraged them to stand firm in their support for peace, democracy and a two-state solution.

They further warned that a situation where Jewish communities in the West Bank live under Israeli civilian law, while neighbouring Palestinians live under Israeli military law, would inevitably prompt parallels with historical repressive and discriminatory regimes, including apartheid South Africa.

Lakhdar Brahimi, former Algerian Foreign Minister and UN diplomat, said:

“The Palestinian people deserve the world’s solidarity and support. Their independence and agency are denied, their polity divided and their rights ignored by the occupying power, even when Palestinian doctors and nurses work tirelessly in Israeli hospitals to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. The Palestinians have an inalienable right to their land and to their state. And they have the right to struggle for those rights. The world has overlooked its responsibility to the people of Palestine for too many decades. Silence now would be a bitter betrayal, and is certain to have dire consequences for all concerned.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

Global military expenditure sees largest annual increase in a decade—says SIPRI

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Stockholm International Peace Researh Institute

Total global military expenditure rose to $1917 billion in 2019, according to new data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The total for 2019 represents an increase of 3.6 per cent from 2018 and the largest annual growth in spending since 2010. The five largest spenders in 2019, which accounted for 62 per cent of expenditure, were the United States, China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia. This is the first time that two Asian states have featured among the top three military spenders. The comprehensive annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database is accessible from today [27 April] at www.sipri.org.


(click on the image to enlarge)

Global military spending in 2019 represented 2.2 per cent of the global gross domestic product (GDP), which equates to approximately $249 per person. ‘Global military expenditure was 7.2 per cent higher in 2019 than it was in 2010, showing a trend that military spending growth has accelerated in recent years,’ says Dr Nan Tian, SIPRI Researcher. ‘This is the highest level of spending since the 2008 global financial crisis and probably represents a peak in expenditure.’
 
United States drives global growth in military spending
Military spending by the United States  grew by 5.3 per cent to a total of $732 billion in 2019 and accounted for 38 per cent of global military spending. The increase in US spending in 2019 alone was equivalent to the entirety of Germany’s military expenditure for that year. ‘The recent growth in US military spending is largely based on a perceived return to competition between the great powers,’ says Pieter D. Wezeman, Senior Researcher at SIPRI.

China and India top Asian military spending
In 2019 China and India were, respectively, the second- and third-largest military spenders in the world. China’s military expenditure reached $261 billion in 2019, a 5.1 per cent increase compared with 2018, while India’s grew by 6.8 per cent to $71.1 billion. ‘India’s tensions and rivalry with both Pakistan and China are among the major drivers for its increased military spending,’ says Siemon T. Wezeman, SIPRI Senior Researcher.
 
(Article continued on the right column)

(Click here for a version of this article in French or here for a version in Spanish.)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

In addition to China and India, Japan ($47.6 billion) and South Korea ($43.9 billion) were the largest military spenders in Asia and Oceania. Military expenditure in the region has risen every year since at least 1989.
 
Germany leads military expenditure increases in Europe
Germany’s military spending rose by 10 per cent in 2019, to $49.3 billion. This was the largest increase in spending among the top 15 military spenders in 2019. ‘The growth in German military spending can partly be explained by the perception of an increased threat from Russia, shared by many North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states,’ says Diego Lopes da Silva, Researcher at SIPRI. ‘At the same time, however, military spending by France and the United Kingdom remained relatively stable.’ 

There were sharp increases in military expenditure among NATO member states in Central Europe: for example, Bulgaria’s increased by 127 per cent—mainly due to payments for new combat aircraft—and Romania’s rose by 17 per cent. Total military spending by all 29 NATO member states was $1035 billion in 2019.
In 2019 Russia was the fourth-largest spender in the world and increased its military expenditure by 4.5 per cent to $65.1 billion. ‘At 3.9 per cent of its GDP, Russia’s military spending burden was among the highest in Europe in 2019,’ says Alexandra Kuimova, Researcher at SIPRI.
 
Volatile military spending in African states in conflict
Armed conflict is one of the main drivers for the volatile nature of military spending in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in the Sahel and Lake Chad region, where there are several ongoing armed conflicts, military spending in 2019 increased in Burkina Faso (22 per cent), Cameroon (1.4 per cent) and Mali (3.6 per cent) but fell in Chad (–5.1 per cent), Niger (–20 per cent) and Nigeria (–8.2 per cent). Among Central African countries that were involved in armed conflict, military spending in 2019 rose overall. The Central African Republic (8.7 per cent), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (16 per cent) and Uganda (52 per cent) all increased military spending in 2019.
 
Other notable regional developments

South America: Military expenditure in South America was relatively unchanged in 2019, at $52.8 billion. Brazil accounted for 51 per cent of total military expenditure in the subregion.

Africa: The combined military expenditure of states in Africa grew by 1.5 per cent to an estimated $41.2 billion in 2019—the region’s first spending increase for five years.

South East Asia: Military spending in South East Asia increased by 4.2 per cent in 2019 to reach $40.5 billion.

The average military spending burden was 1.4 per cent of GDP for countries in the Americas, 1.6 per cent for Africa, 1.7 per cent for Asia and Oceania and for Europe and 4.5 per cent for the Middle East (in countries for which data is available).

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Threatening Military Intervention in Venezuela During a Pandemic?

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Medea Benjamin and Leonardo Flores in Common Dreams (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License)

Unbeknownst to most Americans—and as we are grapple with this terrifying pandemic—the Trump administration is currently carrying out the largest military operation in Latin America in 30 years, and has made it clear that alleged Venezuelan “narco-terrorism” is the target. It’s worth noting that the last deployment of similar size took place at the time of the 1989 U.S. military intervention in Panama to remove General Manuel Noriega. 


Littoral combat ship USS Detroit off the coast of Venezuela. (Photo: US Navy/DoD)

President Trump announced the deployment at the beginning of an April 1 COVID-19 press conference.  According to Defense Secretary Mark Esper, “included in this force package are Navy destroyers and littoral combat ships, Coast Guard Cutters, P.A. patrol aircraft, and elements of an Army security force assistance brigade.” General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that there are “thousands of sailors, Coast Guardsman, soldiers, airmen, Marines involved in this operation.”

The announcement came a week after U.S. Attorney General William Barr unsealed an indictment against President Nicolás Maduro and 13 other current or former Venezuelan officials. The officials were accused of “narco-terrorism” and millions of dollars in cash rewards were offered for information leading to their capture, including a $15 million reward for Maduro.

In their remarks during the press conference, Trump administration officials made it clear that the main target of this massive military mission is, in the words of Esper, “the illegitimate Maduro regime in Venezuela” that relies “on the profits derived from the sale of narcotics to maintain its oppressive hold on power.” National Security Advisor Robert O’Brian said “we will continue to execute our maximum pressure policy to counter the Maduro regime’s malign activities, including drug trafficking.” 

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
US war against Venezuela: How can it be prevented?

(continued from left column).

With cities in Venezuela under lockdown and the country struggling to address a looming public health crisis and yet another economic shock, it is clear that the Trump administration sees a new opportunity to exercise “maximum pressure” to try to achieve regime change. President Trump has been threatening military intervention since 2017, and this massive deployment of naval assets in the vicinity of Venezuela takes the U.S. one step closer to an armed attack.  William Brownfield, former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela and one of the architects of the strategy to undermine the Venezuelan government, called the deployment “the application of [Trump’s] military option.”

According to Foreign Policy, the U.S. Defense Department opposed deploying such a great quantity of military assets to the Caribbean, especially at a time when the U.S. military is having to confront the spread of Covid-19 (as witnessed recently aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt). According to a former senior government official, Trump’s decision to deploy these assets over the objections of DOD commanders was driven entirely by “politics.”

 A senior official at the Pentagon told Newsweek  that “the premise of the operation is a surge against drug trafficking—but when have you ever heard of using that type of force for drugs? (…) The underlying purpose is to pressurize the Maduro regime.” This pressure could come in the form of the U.S. Navy boarding and seizing Venezuelan oil tankers, according to a senior Maduro government official. This is a valid worry, as the Pentagon has claimed—without offering any evidence—that drugs are trafficked “using naval vessels from Venezuela to Cuba.” Given the U.S. government’s targeting and sanction of ships that transport oil from Cuba to Venezuela, it hardly beggars belief that Venezuelan oil tankers could be boarded by the U.S. military.

As a recent report  by the Washington Office on Latin America reveals, the U.S. government’s own data has shown that only a small fraction of Colombian cocaine shipments pass through Venezuela on their way to the U.S. According to this data, six times more cocaine transited through Guatemala than Venezuela in 2018. 

Venezuela is battling COVID-19 within its own borders, as we are doing here at home. The country is also experiencing a deep economic crisis and facing severe shortages of medical supplies, a situation that has been compounded by U.S. unilateral economic sanctions.  President Trump has no business deploying U.S. military assets against Venezuela, a country that in no shape or form represents a threat to the security of the United States, especially not now when a pandemic is raging around the world and in our own country.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America, North America,