Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

USA: United National AntiWar Coalition : US and NATO aggression towards Russia – danger at the Ukrainian Border

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from the United National AntiWar Coalition

The US government and its corporate media have been trying to build a case that Russia is getting ready to invade Ukraine.  Their main argument is that they have observed around 90,000 Russian troops near the border with Ukraine.  Near the border means that they are on Russian territory, this is what the US calls aggression.  Although US and NATO forces have surrounded Russia and have conducted military maneuvers right at the Russian border, that is deemed to be not provocative, but Russia massing troops in its own territory is.  What is never said in any of these reports is that there are 125,000 Ukrainian troops in the Donbass region right near the Russian border.  These troops have been freshly equipped by the US with advanced weaponry and US military “advisors” have been aiding them in their aggressive military posture.  The massing of Russian troops near its border is a defensive move on their part to counter the threat of the US and NATO and their ally Ukraine that wants NATO membership.

In 1990, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, James Baker the US secretary of state told the Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand east of Germany.  Since then, it has expanded into 14 countries in violation of that agreement, right up to the Russian border.  History has since shown the world that it is the US and its NATO allies that are the aggressors everywhere in the world.  It is the US with its military in more than 170 countries, with 20 times the number of foreign bases as all other countries in the world combined that has invaded and occupied one country after the next.  It is the US that spends almost as much on the military as all other countries combined. This is what the Russians fear and with good reason.
 
The Russians have only to look at the coup that the US orchestrated in Ukraine in 2014.  They can recall Senator John McCain speaking to the protesters in Maidan Square, Kiev, urging them forward to topple their government, and US diplomat Victoria Nuland as she brought treats for the Maidan protesters and was recorded on the phone saying “fuck the EU” because they wanted to replace the Ukrainian president with someone other than the US hand-picked person.  The US pick, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, of course, was installed as the new prime minister after the coup, and ever since the US has had important influence in Ukraine.  The new finance minister in the coup government was Natalie Jeresko, from the US and Joe Biden’s son took a role on the board of the largest Natural gas company in the country.   The new government contained far right and Nazi parties such as the Svoboda Party and others associated with a coalition of right-wing groups called the Right Sector.  In Ukraine today there are openly fascist militias, swastikas chalked on walls or displayed on jackets and torchlight marches through the streets with people chanting anti-Semitic and anti-Russian slogans.   This is what the US put in place and what Russia – who lost 20 million people to the Nazi terror in World War II – fears. 

(Continued in right column)

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

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

 
The key demand of Russia is that Ukraine, which has the largest border with Russia of any European country, not become a NATO member.  They also demand that the U.S. and NATO back off on their approach to the Russian border and stop placing armed nuclear installations on their border.   The US/NATO/Ukraine aggression is happening at a time when the Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelenskiy has been making promises to “win back” Crimea and has started an offensive against the Eastern break-away regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.  All three areas are Russian speaking regions that rejected the 2014 coup as far-right and Nazi forces took hold of the government.  The people of Crimea voted by over 90% to break from Ukraine and re-integrate into Russia since they had been part of Russia untill 1956 anyway.  In the Donbass, which is the area of Luhansk and Donetsk, the people organized into the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic, created their own flags and built people’s militias to defend their territory against the right-wing and anti-Russian government of Kiev.  Although a cease fire agreement was reached, it has been consistently violated by Kiev and recently the Zelenskiy government has stepped-up attacks in the regions.  More than 14,000 people have been killed in this war in the Eastern Ukraine.
 
Another reason for the recent US/Ukraine aggression may be because just recently, Russia completed its Nordstream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and is ready to turn it on.  This can provide gas to Germany and Europe at a much better price than the US can offer with its fracked gas.  This will also replace the Russian gas pipeline that runs through Ukraine.  Natural gas was a key factor in the 2014 Ukrainian coup.  Like many of the other recent US initiated wars, energy may be a big issue in this situation too.
 
We demand:

– No US weapons or military advisors for the Ukrainian military
– Stop the US saber rattling, No war with Russia
– Keep Ukraine out of NATO

(Editor’s note: UNAC brings together most of the leading antiwar organizations of the United States. A recent video conference of UNAC against war in the Ukraine included representatives of the ANSWER coalition, Black Alliance for Peace, CodePink, International Action Center, Popular Resistance, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, US Peace Council, Black Agenda Report, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Veterans for Peace and World Beyond War.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, North America,

UK: Stop the War statement on the crisis over Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from Stop the War Coalition

Stop the War opposes any war over Ukraine, and believes the crisis should be settled on a basis which recognises the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and addresses Russia’s security concerns.

Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes.

The British government has talked up the threat of war continually, to the point where the Ukraine government has asked it to stop.

Unlike the French and German governments, it has advanced no proposals for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, and has contributed only sabre-rattling.

Indeed, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has even accused those seeking a peaceful settlement of preparing “another Munich.”

(Continued in right column)

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

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

Instead, the British government has sent arms to Ukraine and deployed further troops to Eastern Europe, moves which serve no purpose other than inflaming tensions and indicating disdain for Russian concerns.

It has also declared that Ukraine has a “sovereign right” to join NATO, when no such right exists to join it or any other military alliance.
Britain needs to change its policy, and start working for peace, not confrontation.

Stop the War believes that Russia and Ukraine should reach a diplomatic settlement of the tensions between them, on the basis of the Minsk-2 agreement already signed by both states.

It believes NATO should call a halt to its eastward expansion and commit to a new security deal for Europe which meets the needs of all states and peoples.

We refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance, and believe its record in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya over the last generation, not to mention the US-British attack on Iraq, clearly proves otherwise.

We support all efforts to reach new arms control agreements in Europe and to move towards nuclear disarmament across the continent.

We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

France : War is never the solution. Yes to a negotiated political solution.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An appeal signed by the organizations mentioned below and available on the website of FSU (translation by CPNN)

Tensions between the United States and Russia – two nuclear powers – are reaching alarming proportions with massive Russian troop movements on the borders of Ukraine on the one hand and arms deliveries and sending of troops by NATO in neighboring countries on the other hand. This policy of confrontation can only produce losers.

We are not immune to provocations that would lead to a major war.

Ukraine is paying a heavy economic and human price due to nationalist hostilities fueled internationally. These tensions can have very negative consequences for all the peoples of Europe well beyond the conflict zone, for example the rise in gas prices…

We must choose the path of dialogue and peace. There are diplomatic solutions to the crisis.

We denounce the geopolitical games at work both on the part of the Russian Federation, the European Union, NATO and others…

We call on all political leaders to stop following military logic and to respect the peoples’ aspiration for peace.

(Continued in right column)

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

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

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

All peoples without exception – who are faced with a global crisis (climate, social health, etc.) affecting the poorest, the most fragile – have nothing to gain from a new war!

The priorities for the peoples and the future of humanity are called: Peace, climate, social justice, realization of human rights, disarmament!

We demand:

Immediate negotiations for de-escalation;

Stopping threats, NATO and Russian troop concentrations and arms deliveries to all parties;

A ceasefire in Ukraine and the implementation of existing agreements;

That the United Nations be the privileged framework for developing political and diplomatic solutions to settle the Ukrainian question.

On these bases, we call for the widest possible mobilizations from February 12, 2022.

Initial signatories : Le Mouvement de la Paix, FSU, CGT, Enseignants Pour la Paix (EPP), PUGWASH- France, AFCDRP (Association française des communes départements et régions pour la Paix), Appel des Cent Bagnolet, ACCA (Agir contre le colonialisme aujourd’hui), PCF, République et Socialisme, Collectif citoyen pour la paix en Ukraine, Conseil de coordination du Forum des Russes de France, APCV (Association de promotion des cultures du voyage), Parti pour la laïcité et la démocratie en Algérie (PLD), IDRP (Institut de Recherche pour la Paix), Vrede (Mouvement Belge pour la Paix), Union des fédérations de pionniers de France, Abolition des armes nucléaires – Maison de vigilance, Université Européenne de la Paix (UEP), Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), Alerte Otan (Belgique), Pôle de renaissance communiste en France (PRCF), Mouvement pour une Alternative Non Violente (MAN), France Amérique Latine (FAL), La Voix Lycéenne, AFPS Paris-Sud, Collectif Faty KOUMBA (Association des Libertés, Droits de l’Homme et non-violence), FNDIRP44, Mouvement National de Lutte pour l’Environnement (MNLE),ATTAC ,Fondation Copernic

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

France: Appeal by the AFCDRP on the occasion of the 1st Anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An appeal received by email at CPNN from AFCDRP, the French Association of Communities, Departments and Regions for Peace

One year after the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the AFCDRP-Maires pour la Paix calls on its member communities to mobilize to make France participate in the first meeting of States Parties to the UN from 22 to 24 March 2022 in Vienna, Austria.

In a fragile socio-economic context aggravated by the Covid 19 pandemic and the climate emergency, new military spending only contributes to the impoverishment of society and the poverty of citizens.

(Continued in right column)

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

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

(Continued from left column)

Not only poverty, but also the threat of nuclear weapons, is a source of tension and insecurity in our territories and beyond our borders.

We say no to this insecurity!

We, elected representatives of cities and local authorities, have a duty to invest in favor of peace and disarmament.

We express by this appeal that cooperation and brotherhood should prevail among peoples.

About sixty countries have already ratified the TPNW, including Austria and Ireland within the European Union. In addition, five countries will attend the meeting as observers (Germany, Finland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden). France must open up to the debate on nuclear weapons and take full part in the movement.

We call on French communities to mobilize locally for this first anniversary of the ratification of the TPNW to ensure that France takes part and truly advances on the path of nuclear disarmament.

Two gatherings have already been announced for Saturday January 22 in Lyon, place de la Comédie 69001 (at 3 p.m.) and in Paris, place Edmond Michelet 75004 (from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.). Join the movement!

AFCDRP is available on social media at twitter and facebook

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

United National AntiWar Coalition: No War with Russia

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

An email received at CPNN from the United National AntiWar Coalition

Today (February 6) was an amazing day. In little more than 1 week, the entire antiwar movement came together, signed a joint statement against a war with Russia and organized protests in dozens of cities around the country. We also held an online rally where antiwar leaders from many groups spoke. The consensus is that we must remain unified and continue to organize our movement into the future.


Tomorrow, you will have the opportunity to join our webinar where peace activists from the US, Russia and Ukraine will speak. Hundreds have already registered. You can do so below and help make this a powerful event.

US/NATO Aggression at the Russian Border
A conversation between US, Russian and Ukrainian Peace activists
Webinar, Sunday, February 6,
12 noon Eastern (US/Canada)

Click here to register

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

The peace movement in the United States, What are its strengths and weaknesses?

(Article continued from left column)

Speakers will include:

Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer, Black Alliance for Peace

Larissa Shessler, Chair, Union of Political Emigrants & Political prisoners of Ukraine

Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Joe Lombardo, Coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)

Vladimir Kozin, Correspondent member, Russian Academy of Military Science

Leonid Ilderkin, Coordinating Council of the Union of Political Emigrants & Political Prisoners of Ukraine.

Corporate media in the US has been warning about a possible invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This, Russia denies. But this propaganda has been used by the Biden Administration to whip up sentiment for war. Billions of dollars of US arms have been sent to Ukraine, Ukraine has massed an estimated 145,000 troops on the Russian border with US “advisors” supporting their effort. For years the US and its Western allies have moved NATO into Eastern European and former Soviet States in violation of agreements made with Russia. They have installed missiles at the Russian border and conducted “war games” at the Russian border. Today’s threat is a threat against a major nuclear power that puts the entire world in danger. Join us for this important webinar with voices for peace from Russia, Ukraine and the US.

Click here for UNAC’s statement on the situation on the Russian border

(Editor’s note: See also the CPNN article US Must Take Russia’s Security Concerns Seriously)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

US Must Take Russia’s Security Concerns Seriously

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by by Natylie Baldwin in Antiwar.com

(Editor’s Note: In recent weeks, Russian President Putin has proposed new peace treaties between Russia and the US and between Russia and NATO. Google lists perhaps a hundred news articles that mention Putin’s proposals but nowhere in any of the articles could I find a reference to the actual text of the proposals or to the historical context that includes American assurances at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not be expanded towards Russia. Instead, the articles listed by google support American and NATO claims that that Putin’s proposals mask a justification for Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Finally, after a rather long and detailed search, I found the following article (not listed by google) that links to the treaty proposals and to the historical context. Here it is.)

Illustration from the blog of Natylie Baldwin

An American Russia expert recently observed that diplomacy is not a reward for good behavior. Rather diplomacy is a necessary activity required for averting war. Skilled diplomacy requires one to understand the perceived interests of the other side and what shapes those perceptions. This helps both sides to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution that takes into account the most serious concerns of each. The Biden administration would be wise to give a fair hearing to the security concerns of the world’s other nuclear superpower at the upcoming meeting with Russia on January 10th in order to avert unnecessary escalation in Eastern Europe.

As Putin gets further into what could be his final term as president, he has decided to try to get a meaningful resolution to one of his top priorities: ensuring Russia’s national security. If he can successfully resolve this issue, he may feel freer to open up the purse strings and invest more in his other top priority: raising Russia’s living standards, which have fallen behind as a result of the austerity  that has been imposed as the Russian government has focused on macroeconomic stability to make the economy “sanction-proof. ”

He has started by offering a proposed draft agreement between  Russia and the US and one between  Russia and NATO that guarantee no further eastward expansion of NATO and no stationing of US/NATO troops in Ukraine or intermediate- and short-range missiles in Europe.

While it may seem like Russia is making extreme demands and offering no concessions of its own in return, one must keep a few points in mind. First, at the beginning of negotiations, parties will typically start with maximalist positions with the idea that they will be whittled down during talks to something they can live with. Second, Russia has genuine security concerns that many Americans are not aware of because most media has made little attempt to explain Russia’s perspective with regard to its disagreements with the US-led west.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

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

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Lacking some of the natural barriers that Americans take for granted, Russia has a history of invasions from the West, including Germany twice in the 20th century – having come through the Polish/Ukrainian corridor. Hitler’s invasion in WWII resulted in around 27 million dead Soviets and destruction of a third of the country. These perceived security interests are driven by historical experience and therefore represent a Russian view, not simply a Putin view.

With this heavy history, Mikhail Gorbachev was hesitant to allow a reunified Germany during 1990 negotiations with western leaders. Declassified government documents  reveal that in order to secure Gorbachev’s agreement, he was promised verbally more than once by US Secretary of State James Baker and other western officials that NATO would not move “one inch eastward.”

After the mutually negotiated end of the Cold War and subsequent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO had lost its reason for existence and had to resort to finding other justifications for remaining in business. This project was assisted by political ideologues , such as Zbig Brzezinski and Neoconservatives, as well as intense defense contractor lobbying  which helped spur NATO expansion rather than a re-negotiation of a European security architecture that would ensure the security of all parties. From Russia’s perspective, it made sense to ask: if the Cold War had ended, Russia had voluntarily given up its empire and was no longer an enemy, then why was NATO being expanded with Russia excluded from these new security arrangements?

Not only has the US overseen several rounds of NATO expansion since 1999, it has unilaterally withdrawn from several important treaties governing arms control. The first is the ABM Treaty, the abrogation of which Russia viewed as a threat to its nuclear retaliatory capability. There is also the INF Treaty, the dissolution of which will now allow the US to potentially station intermediate range missiles in Europe, representing another perceived danger to Russia’s security interests.

Then there was the US-supported coup that removed the corrupt but democratically elected leader of Ukraine in 2014, which sparked deeper dissension in a country that has political and cultural divisions that go back centuries. The cold hard reality is that Ukraine has more strategic and historical significance to Russia than it could ever have to the US thousands of miles away. Russia also has the advantage of proximity in the event of a military conflict. The US should seriously reconsider the wisdom of paying lip service to Ukraine’s military defense for any such scenario. Ukraine is the poorest  country in Europe and also one of the most corrupt . Ukraine would provide no benefit to NATO as a member and it’s safe to say that neither Americans  nor most Europeans  would be willing to die for it. Ukraine would be best served if it were militarily neutral and allowed to negotiate economically beneficial relations with both Russia and the West, with the most extreme political elements in the country discouraged from their most reckless inclinations.

It’s time for the US to get beyond its post-Cold War triumphalist mentality and pursue practical diplomacy with Russia. Insisting that all countries have the right to decide what military alliances they join without regard to the larger real world context is a nonstarter. Everyone knows the US would never take this attitude if Russia and China decided to lure Canada or Mexico into joining a military alliance with them.

The Russia of 2022 is not the Russia of the 1990’s. In order to get something, the US-led west will now have to give something. That means a willingness to seriously address Russia’s security concerns. It remains to be seen if the US is capable of the shift in mindset needed to rise to the occasion.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global,

Russia, China, Britain, U.S. and France say no one can win nuclear war

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Reuters (reprinted by permission)

China, Russia, Britain, the United States and France have agreed that a further spread of nuclear arms and a nuclear war should be avoided, according to a joint statement by the five nuclear powers published by the Kremlin on Monday (January 3).


It said that the five countries – which are the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – consider it their primary responsibility to avoid war between the nuclear states and to reduce strategic risks, while aiming to work with all countries to create an atmosphere of security.

“We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” the English-language version of the statement read.

“As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons — for as long as they continue to exist — should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.”

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu said the joint statement could help increase mutual trust and “replace competition among major powers with coordination and cooperation,” adding that China has a “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons, state news agency Xinhua reported.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

France also released the statement, underscoring that the five powers reiterated their determination for nuclear arms control and disarmament. They would continue bilateral and multilateral approaches to nuclear arms control, it said.

The statement from the so-called P5 group comes as bilateral relations between the United States and Moscow have fallen to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, while relations between Washington and China are also at a low over a range of disagreements.

The Pentagon in November sharply increased its estimate of China’s projected nuclear weapons arsenal over the coming years, saying Beijing could have 700 warheads by 2027 and possibly 1,000 by 2030.

Washington has repeatedly urged China to join it and Russia in a new arms control treaty.

Geopolitical tensions between Moscow and Western countries have increased over concerns about Russia’s military buildup near neighbouring Ukraine. Moscow says it can move its army around its own territory as it deems necessary.

Last Thursday U.S. President Joe Biden told his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that a possible move on Ukraine would draw sanctions and an increased U.S. presence in Europe.

U.S. and Russian officials will hold security talks on Jan. 10 to discuss concerns about their respective military activity and confront rising tensions over Ukraine, the two countries said.

A conference on a major nuclear treaty that was set to begin on Tuesday at the United Nations has been postponed until August due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Peace Dividend Signatories: Over 50 Nobel laureates and presidents of learned societies

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

Text and illustration from the website of Peace Dividend

World military spending has doubled since 2000. It is approaching 2 trillion US dollars per year, and is increasing in all regions of the world.

Individual governments are under pressure to increase military spending because others do so. The feedback mechanism sustains a spiralling arms race – a colossal waste of resources that could be used far more wisely. Past arms races have often had the same outcome: deadly and destructive conflicts.

We have a simple proposal for humankind: the governments of all UN member-states should negotiate a joint reduction of their military expenditure by 2% every year for five years.


BROTHERHOOD II, courtesy of www.leclosier.com

The rationale for the proposal is simple:

Adversary nations reduce military spending, so the security of each country is increased, while deterrence and balance are preserved.

The agreement contributes to reducing animosity, thereby decreasing the risk of war.

Vast resources – a ‘peace dividend’ of as much as 1 trillion USD by 2030 

We propose that half of the resources freed up by this agreement are allocated to a global fund, under UN supervision, to address humanity’s grave common problems: pandemics, climate change, and extreme poverty.

The other half remains at the disposal of individual governments. All countries will therefore have significant new resources. Some of these can be used to redirect the strong research capacities of military industries towards urgently needed peaceful applications.

History shows that agreements to limit the proliferation of weapons are achievable: thanks to the SALT and START treaties, the United States and the Soviet Union have reduced their nuclear arsenals by 90% since the nineteen eighties. Such negotiations can succeed because they are rational: each actor benefits from its adversaries’ armaments reduction, and so does humanity as a whole.

Humankind faces risks that can only be averted through cooperation.

Let us cooperate, instead of fighting among ourselves.

Question for this article:

How can we ensure that science contributes to peace and sustainable development?

The signatories: over 50 Nobel laureates and presidents of learned societies:

Hiroshi Amano (Nobel Physics)
Peter Agre (Nobel Chemistry)
David Baltimore (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Barry C. Barish (Nobel Physics)
Martin L. Chalfie (Nobel Chemistry)
Steven Chu (Nobel Physics)
Robert F. Curl Jr. (Nobel Chemistry)
Johann Deisenhofer (Nobel Chemistry)
Jacques Dubochet (Nobel Chemistry)
Gerhard Ertl (Nobel Chemistry)
Joachim Frank (Nobel Chemistry)
Sir Andre K. Geim (Nobel Physics)
Sheldon L. Glashow (Nobel Physics)
Carol Greider (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Harald zur Hausen (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Dudley R. Herschbach (Nobel Chemistry)
Avram Hershko (Nobel Chemistry)
Roald Hoffmann (Nobel Chemistry)
Robert Huber (Nobel Chemistry)
Louis J. Ignarro (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Brian Josephson (Nobel Physics)
Takaaki Kajita (Nobel Physics)
Tawakkol Karman (Nobel Peace)
Brian K. Kobilka (Nobel Chemistry)
Roger D. Kornberg (Nobel Chemistry)
Yuan T. Lee (Nobel Chemistry)
Jean-Marie Lehn (Nobel Chemistry)
John C. Mather (Nobel Physics)
Eric S. Maskin (Nobel Economics)
May-Britt Moser (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Edvard I. Moser (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)Erwin Neher (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Sir Paul Nurse (Nobel Physiology or Medicine and Past President, Royal Society)
Giorgio Parisi (Nobel Physics)
Jim Peebles (Nobel Physics)
Sir Roger Penrose (Nobel Physics)
Edmund S. Phelps (Nobel Economics)
John C. Polanyi (Nobel Chemistry)
H. David Politzer (Nobel Physics)
Sir Venki Ramakrishnan (Nobel Chemistry and Past President, Royal Society)
Sir Peter Ratcliffe (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Sir Richard J. Roberts (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Michael Rosbash (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Carlo Rubbia (Nobel Physics)
Randy W. Schekman (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Gregg Semenza (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Robert J. Shiller (Nobel Economics)
Stephen Smale (Fields Medal)
Sir Fraser Stoddart (Nobel Chemistry)
Horst L. Störmer (Nobel Physics)
Thomas C. Südhof (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel Physiology or Medicine)
Olga Tokarczuk (Nobel Literature)
Srinivasa S. R. Varadhan (Abel Prize)
Sir John E. Walker (Nobel Chemistry)
Torsten Wiesel (Nobel Medicine)
Mohamed H. A. Hassan (President, World Academy of Sciences)
Annibale Mottana (President, Italian National Academy of the Sciences)
Roberto Antonelli (President, Italian Lincean Academy)
Patrick Flandrin (President, French Academy of Sciences)
Anton Zeilinger (President, Austrian Academy of Sciences)
Carlo Rovelli and Matteo Smerlak (Organizers)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

European Union launches new programme to support peace, stability and conflict prevention

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article from the European Union

The EU is stepping up its capacity to advance peace and security in conflict-affected areas.

With a budget of almost €900 million, the Global Europe thematic programme on Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention will support actions with a global or trans-regional impact during the period of 2021-2027, by providing assistance to build capacities for conflict prevention, peacebuilding and crisis preparedness and addressing global, trans-regional and emerging threats. Through this programme, the EU will contribute to the achievement of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell said: “The EU needs to be able to address instability and conflict globally. With this programme, we step up our capacity to act and support our partners in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and crisis preparedness globally, and to address emerging threats. It will ensure that we match our ambitions with tangible support.”

Building on the work done under the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, it will be complemented by other tools, such as the European Peace Facility and Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations.

The support under this programme will focus on two main priorities:

Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention

As main innovations, the programme will advance the EU’s assistance for promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, better integrate the environmental degradation/climate impact on conflicts and enhance the focus on children, youth and women as actors for peace. It pays particular attention to contributing to the resolution of ongoing conflicts, and to conflict prevention, and will continue the support to mediation processes. In this context, through the early warning approach the EU will be able to respond to the risks of conflict before they materialise and take early action.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Can peace be guaranteed through nonviolent means?

(continued from left column)

Global, trans-regional and emerging threats

At the same time, the programme will address global threats and challenges. Terrorism continues to pose one of the most serious threats to global peace and security. There is an increasing need to address the root causes of terrorism and violent extremism as well as terrorism financing. This programme will strengthen the EU’s role as a global leader and standard setter, reinforcing actions on counter-terrorism and preventing violent extremism, in full respect of human rights.

Annual Action Programme for 2021

In 2021, the actions funded under this programme will focus on innovative approaches to address disinformation on peace building processes and conflict sensitive, community-based technological solutions to climate change, as well as to addressing the root causes of terrorism, violent extremism and terrorism financing. In parallel, it will continue to ensure crucial support civil society organisations and multilateralism as well as to enhance early warning and conflict analysis tools.

For more information

MEMO: Global Europe Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention – thematic programme 2021-2027

Global Europe: Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument-Global Europe

Global Europe – thematic programme on Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention

Service for Foreign Policy Instruments – Conflict prevention, peace and stability

EEAS Security, Defence & Crisis Response

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Open Letter from Mayors for Peace to States Parties of NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An open letter from Mayors for Peace

On behalf of Mayors for Peace, a global non-governmental organization with 8,059 member cities, we are writing to express our views prior to the NPT Review Conference that will open next January in New York.

We urge all participants to recall the solemn historical circumstances facing this conference. The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had catastrophic humanitarian consequences. World leaders recognized then that a new global institution was needed to replace the League of Nations, which failed to prevent World War II. They created the UN to maintain international peace and security and the General Assembly’s first resolution set the goal of nuclear disarmament, which became a legal obligation of NPT Parties in 1970.

We wish to convey our deep concern over recent developments that seriously jeopardize prospects for achieving the great disarmament goals of this treaty, especially those found in Article VI:

• With new nuclear arms races underway, and tensions between nuclear-armed States rising to levels not seen for decades, the danger of nuclear war, by accident, miscalculation or design, is real and growing. These tensions are at their highest since the Cold War.

• We are dismayed that over the 51 years since the treaty entered into force, the nuclear-weapon States have not even begun to outline how they will jointly negotiate to eliminate their nuclear weapons, despite the treaty’s requirement for such negotiations in good faith.

• In the face of a tragic pandemic and the global economic disruption it has caused, we are deeply disappointed that vast military expenditures are continuing to grow, while basic human needs and the special needs of cities remain unaddressed.

Given these concerns, we must go back to the very basics, and reaffirm our collective duty to pursue the human ideal of a peaceful world without nuclear weapons. Now is the time to do so and here what is most needed:

• We strongly encourage States Parties to address directly the real face of nuclear weapons— their catastrophic humanitarian impact—and to make this defining aspect of these weapons a subject for discussion at the Review Conference and an urgent priority to promote through public education.

• We call on the States Parties to reaffirm all disarmament commitments made in the NPT (Article VI and preamble) and the consensus final outcome documents of the 1995 review and extension conference and the 2000 and 2010 Review Conferences. We further urge the States Parties to undertake a collective pledge to take concrete measures to implement these commitments within a designated time frame.

(Continued in right column)

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

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

(Continued from left column)

• We urge the States Parties to examine the implications of the dangerous and immoral doctrine of nuclear deterrence for the future of the treaty, especially Articles I and VI. We also believe that technological innovation has made nuclear weapons and deterrence an even greater threat to humanity and that it is long overdue for an NPT Review Conference to undertake a comprehensive discussion of such weapons and their associated doctrine.

• We believe that nuclear risk reduction measures are legitimate only when they are tied to concrete progress in disarmament. We call on the nuclear-weapon States to implement initiatives to make substantial and concrete progress aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear weapons use, as referred to in the “P5 Conference Paris, 2-3 December, 2021 Final Joint communiqué.”

• We urge the States Parties to recognize that the prohibition norm of the TPNW is indispensable in fully implementing Article VI and that the two treaties are fully compatible and mutually reinforcing.

Mayors for Peace hopes and expects that the States Parties will be able to achieve a consensus on the Final Document at this particular Review Conference. We remain a firm supporter of the NPT and extend our best wishes for a successful Review Conference in overcoming old obstacles and inspiring a brighter future for all.

December 13, 2021, Mayors for Peace

President Mayor of Hiroshima, Japan

Vice president Mayor of Nagasaki, Japan
Vice president Mayor of Hannover, Germany
Vice president Mayor of Volgograd, Russia
Vice president Mayor of Malakoff, France
Vice president Mayor of Muntinlupa, Philippines
Vice president Lord Mayor of Manchester, U.K.
Vice president Mayor of Ypres, Belgium
Vice president Mayor of Biograd na Moru, Croatia
Vice president Mayor of Granollers, Spain
Vice president Mayor of Halabja, Iraq
Vice president Mayor of Mexico City, Mexico
Vice president Mayor of Des Moines, U.S.

Executive Governor of Bangkok, Thailand
Executive Mayor of Fremantle, Australia
Executive Mayor of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Executive Mayor of Semey, Kazakhstan
Executive Mayor of Cochin, India
Executive Mayor of Montreal, Canada
Executive Mayor of Wellington, New Zealand
Executive Mayor of Santos, Brazil
Executive Mayor of Cartago, Costa Rica
Executive Mayor of Tehran, Iran
Executive Mayor of Grigny, France
Executive Mayor of Cervia, Italy

Mayors for Peace Secretariat C/O Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation,
1-5 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0811 Japan
Phone: +81-82-242-7821
Fax: +81-82-242-7452
E-mail: mayorcon@pcf.city.hiroshima.jp
URL: http://www.mayorsforpeace.org/index.html

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global