Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Sweeping Resolution: “Forging a Path to Peace and Common Security”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Peace Action

At the close of its 90th Annual Meeting in Reno, Nevada, on June 6, 2022, the final business plenary of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) unanimously adopted a sweeping new resolution, titled “Forging a Path to Peace and Common Security.”  This is the seventeenth consecutive year that the USCM has adopted resolutions submitted by U.S. members of Mayors for Peace.


Image from the report,  Common Security 2022; For Our Shared Future

Warning that, “Russia’s unprovoked illegal war on Ukraine, which could eventually draw the militaries of the United States, its NATO allies and Russia into direct conflict, and Russia’s repeated threats to use nuclear weapons, have raised the specter of nuclear war to the highest level since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,” the USCM “calls on the President and Congress to exercise restraint in U.S. military engagement in Ukraine while maximizing diplomatic efforts to end the war as soon as possible by working with Ukraine and Russia to reach an immediate ceasefire and negotiate with mutual concessions in conformity with the United Nations Charter, knowing that the risks of wider war grow the longer the war continues.”

Observing that “the immense nuclear arsenal of the United States, even when combined with the nuclear forces of its European allies France and the United Kingdom, failed to deter Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” and that “since the pandemic began, the U.S. has spent 7.5 times more money on nuclear weapons than on global vaccine donations,” the USCM resolution opens with a stark quote from a recent report:

WHEREAS, a new report, Common Security 2022; For Our Shared Future, sponsored by the Olof Palme Memorial Fund, finds that: “In 2022, humanity faces the existential threats of nuclear war, climate change and pandemics. This is compounded by a toxic mix of inequality, extremism, nationalism, gender violence, and shrinking democratic space. How humanity responds to these threats will decide our very survival.”

Noting that “over the next 30 years, the U.S. plans to spend some $1.7 trillion to replace its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure and upgrade or replace its nuclear bombs and warheads and the bombers, missiles and submarines that deliver them,” and that “the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, requires the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China to negotiate ‘in good faith’ the end of the nuclear arms race ‘at an early date’ and the elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” in the new resolution, the USCM

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

“calls on the U.S. and the other nuclear-armed states parties to the NPT, at the August 2022 10th Review Conference of the Treaty, to implement their disarmament obligations by committing to a process leading to the adoption no later than 2030 of a timebound plan for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2045, the 100th anniversary of their first use, and the 100th anniversary of the United Nations;” and

“calls on the Administration and Congress to rein in annual budgeted military and nuclear weapons spending, and to redirect funds to support safe and resilient cities and meet human needs, including by providing accessible and affordable health care for all, housing and food security, measures to assure reliable funding for municipalities and states throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and future disasters for which they are the first line of defense, green sustainable energy, and environmental protection and mitigation; and to increase investment in international diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and development, and international cooperation to address the climate crisis.”

As recognized in the resolution, “Mayors for Peace, founded in 1982 by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with 8,174 members in 166 countries and regions, including 220 U.S. members, is working for a world without nuclear weapons, safe and resilient cities, and a culture of peace, as essential measures for the realization of lasting world peace.

Noting that, “The United States Conference of Mayors has unanimously adopted Mayors for Peace resolutions for sixteen consecutive years,” the USCM “urges all of its members to join Mayors for Peace to help reach the goal of 10,000 member cities.”

The 2021 USCM resolution was sponsored by Mayors for Peace U.S. Vice-President Frank Cownie, Mayor of Des Moines, Iowa, and co-sponsored by Mayor Tishaura O. Jones of St. Louis, Missouri; Mayor Patrick L. Wojahn of College Park, Maryland; Mayor Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley, California; Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, California; Mayor Joy Cooper of Hallandale Beach, Florida; Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway of Madison, Wisconsin; Mayor J. Christian Bollwage of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Mayor Quentin Hart of Waterloo, Iowa; Mayor

Greg Fisher of Louisville, Kentucky; Mayor Frank C. Ortis of Pembroke Pines, Florida; Mayor Jorge O. Elorza of Providence, Rhode Island; Mayor Farrah Khan of Irvine, California; Mayor Tom Butt of Richmond, California; Mayor Pauline Russo Cutter of San Leandro, California; and Mayor Kenneth Miyagishima of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The United States Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000. Resolutions adopted at its annual meetings become USCM official policy that will guide the organization’s advocacy efforts for the coming year.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Inside a reintegration camp for Colombia’s ex-guerrilla fighters: ‘Words of reconciliation are our only weapons now’

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from The Conversation

The election of Iván Duque four years ago was a threat for us. But we will continue to follow the peace agreement regardless of who is the next president of Colombia. We are more determined than ever to comply with the peace accords, and this is the reason they want to kill us.

Olmedo Vega  spent 35 years as a guerrilla commander during Colombia’s armed conflict – one of the longest the world has ever seen. “The FARC is my family – I grew up with the guerrillas. But now I really want to commit to this new life here in Agua Bonita, along with my old comrades.”


One of the many thought-inspiring murals painted on the houses of Agua Bonita. Photo: Juan Pablo Valderrama. Author provided

Over the past four years, we have carried out 42 in-depth interviews with former guerrilla soldiers in Agua Bonita and some of the other 25 Territorial Spaces for Training, Reintegration and Reincorporation (ETCR in Spanish), developed by the Colombian government and the UN to resettle thousands of former FARC fighters after the historic 2016 peace agreement.

We sought to understand the barriers faced by ex-combatants  as they try to reintegrate into civil society. With President Duque’s reign almost over and his successsor due to be elected on June 19, the result has major implications for the future of Colombia, the survival of the peace agreement, and the prospects of all those former combatants who have committed to a life without conflict.

After six decades of fighting, it is estimated that almost 20% of the population is a  direct victim of Colombia’s civil war – including  almost 9 million internally displaced people, 200,000 enforced disappearances, up to 40,000 kidnappings, more than 17,000 child soldiers, nearly 9,321 landmine incidents, and 16,324 acts of sexual violence.

For the almost 13,000 former FARC guerrillas, the end of the conflict initiated a process of “disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration” into Colombian society. But while positive steps were taken on both sides, more than 300 massacres  have been recorded since the peace deal was signed on September 26 2016. Some 316 FARC ex-combatants  and 1,287 human rights defenders  have been murdered during this period of “peace”, putting the agreement under increasing threat.

‘A place to have a dignified life’

The Agua Bonita  (“Beautiful water”) guerrilla demobilisation camp is located on a small plateau on the edge of the Amazon basin, about an hour’s bumpy drive from Florencia, capital city of the Caquetá department in Colombia’s Amazonía region.

Since 1970, Caquetá had been the headquarters for both FARC and the guerrillas of the Popular Liberation Army  (EPL). It is a geographically strategic corridor for illicit drug trafficking (particularly related to the production of cocaine), the transport of illegal weapons and the smuggling of kidnapped people. It is also one of the first places where guerrilla groups used landmines  to wrest territorial control from the Colombian army.

In 2017, when ex-FARC combatants first arrived in the empty area where Agua Bonita now stands, they worked with local builders for seven months to construct 63 houses using glass-reinforced plastic and average-quality plywood. Local workers from Florencia and the nearby towns of Morelia, Belen de los Andaquíes and El Paujil helped them build the camp.

“At the beginning, it was difficult to work side-by-side with the local builders because of our stigma as guerrilleros,” recalled Federico Montes, one of the community leaders. “But after six months of working with us every day, a couple of them moved with their families to live here!”

Agua Bonita is situated amid one of the most biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystems in the world; home to around 40,000 plant species, nearly 1,300 bird species and 2.5 million different insects. Red-bellied piranhas and pink river dolphins swim in the waters here – yet in both 2019 and 2020, Colombia was named the world’s deadliest country for environmentalists  by human rights and environmental observers Global Witness.

According to Montes, Agua Bonita’s high year-round temperatures and humidity mean “the weather is perfect to grow yucca, plantain, cilantro and pineapple. And if you are feeling more adventurous, you can have trees of araza, copoazu, yellow pitaya  and other Amazonic crops. We are in the middle of a fruit heaven here.”

The community started with a population of more than 300 ex-FARC combatants. These days, it boasts a library with 19 computers and four printers, a bakery, convenience store and restaurant, a football pitch, health centre and community centre with a daycare facility for toddlers. Former combatants farm eight hectares of pineapple cash crop and have their own basic processing plant for fruit pulp. They also have six 13-metre-long fish tanks, a big hen house and dozens of large communal gardens.

One of the main attractions for visitors is the vibrant murals  painted on the 65 modest houses,  portraying  everything from local flora and fauna to guerrilla leaders and FARC paraphernalia. The most recurring features are the words “peace”, “reconciliation” and “hope”.

“Our main aim,” said Montes, “is to create a place to have a dignified life, where all together can be free, safe and secure, living in proper houses with access to health, employment, and education.”

Yet since the establishment of Agua Bonita in 2017, 29 ex-combatants  have been killed in the area. According to Olmedo: “During the government of Duque, there has been a shortage of food, goodwill and economic support in Agua Bonita – a total lack of governmental support. But the presidential elections are giving us hope for a better future.”

‘A lot of stigmas and negative attitudes against us’

In the run up to his election in June 2018, Duque, as leader of the right-wing Centro Democrático party, fiercely opposed the peace agreement with the FARC, vowing to renegotiate what he described as a “lenient” deal  while pledging not to “tear the agreement to shreds”.

After four years in charge, Duque – Colombia’s least popular president  in polling history – has undermined  the implementation of the peace agreement, and further polarised  the country and its politics. Levels of respect for human rights, security, quality of life and poverty have all worsened  under his militaristic tenure.

Olmedo Vega, 49, has lived in Agua Bonita from its earliest foundations. When we met him, Vega was taking part in a video letter exchange project  with young people from Medellin, Colombia’s second-largest city. “Some of the questions from these students were really difficult to answer,” he told us. “There are a lot of stigmas and negative attitudes against us as ex-FARC members. ‘Terrorist’, ‘murderer’, ‘killer’, ‘scumbag’ … these are the words some people used to introduce me.”

But these days, Vega is proud to call himself a student too. One evening, during dinner, he asked us: “What did the arrival of an American astronaut on the Moon mean politically?”

As we fumbled for an answer, he interrupted to say: “I am studying four hours every day to get my qualifications: two hours in the morning, two in the afternoon. We are 30 comrades working so hard to sit the ICFES (Colombian A-level exams) next September. This is why I believe in the peace process, because now we have the opportunity to study. I want to be a doctor in the future, this is my dream. I want to help people, and to build a more equal society in Colombia.”

That evening, Vega offered us cancharina  for pudding and the sugar cane drink by paramilitary groups  in 2021.

“Jorge was my pal. He taught me how to be a good guerrillero, a good comrade. He strongly believed in the power of peace and reconciliation. I cannot understand why he was assassinated in front of his family in that bakery.”

Expressed as a cold statistic, Garzón was ex-combatant no.290 to have been murdered since the signing of the peace agreement. The political assassination.  Francia Márquez, a black environmentalist, also received death threats.
Petro led the presidential election first round on May 29 with 40% of the votes. His rival in the run-off on June 19 will be Rodolfo Hernández, a businessman-politician who is viewed as a right-wing conservative and populist outsider.

Colombia is the only major country in Latin America that has never had a leftist leader. The country’s right-wing parties and liberal establishment appear determined to maintain this record, amid campaigns that have been regularly accused of racism, sexism and classism  against Márquez in particular.

Yet according to a recent survey, 79% of Colombians believe the country is on the wrong track. Political parties have a collective disapproval rate of 76%, with the Colombian Congress only marginally less unpopular.

The successful reintegration of thousands of ex-FARC guerrillas into civil society remains one of many daunting challenges for the next Colombian government. Reintegration problems encountered by ex-combatants worldwide have included  a lack of educational opportunities, the absence of suitable career options and insufficient psychological support.

In Colombia, we have identified three crucial aspects  that are challenging successful reintegration for FARC ex-combatants: a lack of participation in the civilian economy, a lack of access to educational opportunities, and a failure by the authorities to exercise “equal citizenship” that guarantees social and civic reintegration.

At stake is the entire future of the peace agreement, and with it, prospects for reducing poverty, inequality and other dynamics of economic exclusion. Three generations of Colombians do not know what it means to live in a peaceful society. The reintegration of ex-combatants is crucial to building a general understanding that reconciliation is key to creating a new Colombia, where violence is not the answer to overcoming your problems.

‘The stigma makes it impossible to get a job’

The access road to Agua Bonita is not easy. There is no public transport, and the roads are extremely precarious. The poor transport infrastructure of Caquetá in general severely hampers the productivity of this region.

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

What is happening in Colombia, Is peace possible?

(Article continued from left column)

While the camp – which operates entirely as a cooperative – has not suffered from trade boycotts, unlike some other reintegration camps, raw materials can take months to arrive here. And the twin spectres of discrimination and unemployment loom large over residents here.

“I have plenty of stories of people saying to me: ‘You cannot get a job because you don’t deserve it, just get out of here,’” Vega told us. “I have to fight against this stigma every day, and it is worst when I have to apply for a job because sometimes people have the wrong idea about us. I am a proud ex-combatant that just wants the peace of Colombia and a decent job!”

Daniel Aldana  is one of the youngest ex-combatants living in Agua Bonita. He has been trying to get a job since 2019 but, due to the extent of criminalisation and stigmatisation of ex-FARC guerrillas in the region, he said it is almost impossible for him even to secure an interview.

“When the employers saw my identity card had been issued in La Montañita [the nearest town to Agua Bonita], they said I needed to have a ‘special selection process’. That means they will double or triple-check with the authorities if I have a police record or if my name is on a terrorist database list. If you say you are from Agua Bonita, the people say you are a terrorist. This stigma is making it impossible to get a job here.”

Aldana is not alone. Jorge Suarez, a builder who spent more than 13 years as a FARC commander, recalled going for a job interview in Florencia. “It was so humiliating. ‘Assassin’, ‘murderer’ and ‘scumbag’ were just a few of the words the people at the recruitment agency used to refer to me. Never again.”

Suarez added: “The problem is that people don’t trust us. We have done everything to show that our intentions for a peaceful future are real, yet so far we are getting only two things back: no proper jobs, and tons of bullets.”

Such experiences are not unique to ex-combatants living in Agua Bonita. Esteban Torres, a former guerrilla doing his reintegration in the Pondores  camp (ETCR Amaury Rodríguez) in La Guajira, told us he had experienced the same negative reaction.

“In Riohacha City, when I was looking for a job, the people said to me: ‘Well, you look like a nice bloke, but you have blood on your hands. You will never have a job here because you have the blood of innocent people on your hands, and you are a terrorist – a disgrace.’”

Torres continued: “That is when you realise that this is a long-term process. We need a process to remove the stigma against us from Colombian people’s hearts.”

Lessons from Northern Ireland

As well as our interviews with former guerrilla soldiers in Colombia, we also conducted 12 in-depth conversations with ex-combatants in the conflict known as The Troubles. Despite Northern Ireland’s peace agreement  having been in place for nearly a quarter of a century – and the country’s very different societal context – we found many of the raw grievances raised by ex-FARC combatants mirrored by these former political prisoners in Northern Ireland, all of whom asked to remain anonymous.

While we heard common themes expressed by loyalist and republican interviewees alike, we highlight some republican voices here as these ex-combatants were dedicated to a form of counter-state insurgency that resembled the aims of the FARC’s armed struggle against the Colombian state.

One former member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, (P)IRA, spoke about his difficulties finding meaningful employment, despite the fact that he had gained educational qualifications during his time in prison. “I could only get low-level jobs. In prison I had studied so I had qualifications, but I was still only working as a kitchen porter or doorman.

“No one would employ an IRA guy,” he continued. “In one job, I was asked to leave because people found out about my past. They weren’t comfortable working with me any more.”

Another ex-(P)IRA combatant explained the complexity of simply filling out a job application form. “A job application asks: ‘Do you have a criminal record?’ If we say ‘no’ because we claim we don’t have a criminal record – we are not criminals – then we have lied and can be dis-employed, which has happened to many people. But if we say ‘yes’, then we will not get through the vetting procedure.”

Our interviews also highlighted a common resentment about the forms of legally structured discrimination that former combatants in Northern Ireland have experienced.

“We can be stopped from travelling to certain places, and certain jobs are completely off limits to us,” explained another ex-(P)IRA member. “Even our ability to spend money is restricted; we can’t purchase home insurance and car insurance. It’s an inhibitor. We can’t get business loans … It all adds up to making things more difficult for us than for everyone else.”

Many of our interviewees had either worked or volunteered for community-based organisations that sought to diffuse inter-community tensions in Northern Ireland, and to steer young people away from participation in violence. In general, an incredibly small number of ex-political prisoners on both sides have returned to political violence, and very few have been convicted for other forms of violent criminality. Yet despite this, the loyalist and republican ex-combatants we spoke to complained of being largely denied equality of citizenship, and still face blockages to participation in the civilian economy.

‘Society resents us’

More than a decade ago, Esperanza* served as a commander and learned about equal rights as she fought side-by-side with the FARC men. But as soon as she stepped into civilian life, she told us she lost her autonomy again.

“Historically, this is a patriarchal culture. Those of us who go to war break traditional roles and stereotypes set for women, so society resents us. I used to give orders and command 100 armed men, and now they are expecting me to do a cooking course! What the hell?”

Problems highlighted by Esperanza and Tania Gomez, another female ex-combatant living in Agua Bonita, include an absence of suitable career options for women, and a lack of psychological support and understanding of their needs and interests following the war. Such concerns are leading female ex-combatants to drop out of the reintegration programmes.

When the Colombian Reintegration Agency offered Gomez the chance to do a sewing and childcare course, she recalled saying to the official: “Are you kidding me! After 10 years of fighting against the Colombian Army every day, you want me to open a kindergarten? I didn’t join FARC to become a substitute mother, I am a revolutionary!”

For female ex-combatants, after long years as a fighter, the idea of “mainstream” family life can be very unappealing. “What would my life be like in the future if I follow this path?” Esperanza asked us. “Just at home with a husband, kids and playing ‘happy house’ forever? No way! I wouldn’t last a day doing that!”

The reintegration process has clearly failed to achieve genuine gender inclusiveness. When we asked Nelcy Balquiro why she joined the FARC 11 years ago, she said without hesitation: “I wanted to change the world and become somebody. I wanted to be part of something important. My dream now as a civilian is to empower everyday women about their rights and fight this patriarchal system. As a female ex-FARC commander, this is now my more important political mission.”

Discussing the wave of violence that is killing ex-combatants, Balquiro countered immediately: “Nobody says anything about the murdered females – once again the spotlight is on men! Nobody is saying a word about Maria, Patricia, Luz and the other 10 women  who have been murdered [since the peace agreement] – it is shameful.”

Balquiro wants to fight for equal pay and the right to work outside the home. She argued that “feminism is a main part of being a female ex-combatant. We are fighting now for Colombian women to have freedom from abuse and male exploitation.”

‘We are dreaming of peace’

Colombia’s outgoing leader Iván Duque will be widely remembered as a president that did nothing  to implement the peace agreement. Colombia’s election now offers a critical opportunity to address the problems amplified by four years of governmental neglect and lack of political will.

Simón* is a FARC ex-combatant living in the Icononzo  camp (ETCR Antonio Nariño) in the Andean region of Tolima. “I don’t want to live in fear for another four years,” he said.

“The feeling that paramilitary soldiers can kill you at any moment, working in alliance with the actual government, like what happened in Putumayo recently … it’s becoming unbearable. This presidential election is the opportunity to build new roads, new ways, and leave the torturous one that we are having now.”

According to Esteban Torres from the Pondores  camp: “The implementation of the peace process is similar to [Colombia’s traditional festival], Barranquilla’s carnival. Those who live it, enjoy it – and we want to continue the party. [Our goal] is not just to stop killing each other any more in Colombia; it is about creating a new culture of peace, a new rhythm.

“Duque almost killed the party. He didn’t know how to dance along with people that don’t like guns and his extreme-right perspectives. He just likes the rhythms of war. But now we have the opportunity to start tuning good vibes once again and change our future as new citizens of Colombia. My hope is to restart the party!”

Over the six-decade conflict, the Colombian state helped to create and sustain an image of FARC combatants as bloodthirsty barbarians. The new government will need to take brave and imaginative steps to break down these deep-rooted conceptions. There have already been some important initiatives, such as the letter exchanges  between former FARC combatants and Colombian civilians. However, much more must be done if the Colombian state is to avoid the long-standing forms of discrimination still being expressed by ex-political prisoners in Northern Ireland.

It’s also important, in time, to remove legal barriers to equality of citizenship. Understandable measures taken in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, such as the need to carry forms of personal identification that highlight an ex-combatant’s background, need to be subject to sunset clauses – to be lifted, for example, if an individual has met certain requirements that demonstrate their dedication to peace. Similarly, criminal records directly related to participation in the conflict might also be erased once ex-combatants have demonstrated their commitment to the agreement.

In addition, former combatants need to feel some control over their own reintegration. Many participated in combat from a very young age, and possess few skills beyond those learned in situations of violence. Peace can be very difficult for them to navigate. This needs to be recognised and incorporated into the thinking of the Colombian peace process as it develops under the new government.

On the last day of our visit to Agua Bonita, we asked Olmedo Vega what his biggest wish for the future is. “From the bottom of our hearts,” he said, “it is not to leave us alone. We have suffered war, and [since then] we have grown in hope and love. We carry on our backs the historical responsibility of generating reconciliation. We are dreaming of peace.”

*Some interviewees asked only to be identified by their first names

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

Hundreds Protest, Block Entrances to North America’s Largest Weapons Fair

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from World Beyond War

Hundreds of people have blocked access to the opening of CANSEC, North America’s largest weapons and “defense industry” convention at the EY Centre in Ottawa. 40 foot banners saying “Blood On Your Hands,” “Stop Profiting From War,” and “Arms Dealers Not Welcome” obstructed driveways and pedestrian entrances as attendees attempted to register for and enter the convention centre immediately before Canadian Defense Minister Anita Anand was slated to give the opening keynote address.


“The same conflicts around the world which have brought misery to millions have brought record profits to arms manufacturers this year,” said Rachel Small, organizer with World BEYOND War. “These war profiteers have blood on their hands and we are making it impossible for anyone to attend their weapons fair without directly confronting the violence and bloodshed they are complicit in. We’re disrupting CANSEC in solidarity with the millions of people around the world who are being killed, who are suffering, who are being displaced as a result of the weapons sold and military deals made by the people and corporations inside this convention. While more than six million refugees fled Ukraine this year, while more than 400,000 civilians have been killed in seven years of war in Yemen, while at least 13 Palestinian children were killed in the West Bank since the start of 2022, the weapons companies sponsoring and exhibiting in CANSEC are raking in record billions in profits. They are the only people who win these wars.”

Lockheed Martin, one of the major sponsors of CANSEC, has seen their stocks soar nearly 25 percent since the start of the new year, while Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman each saw their stock prices rise by around 12 percent. Just prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Officer James Taiclet said on an earnings call that he predicted the conflict would lead to inflated defence budgets and additional sales for the company. Greg Hayes, CEO of Raytheon, another CANSEC sponsor, told investors earlier this year that the company expected to see “opportunities for international sales” amid the Russian threat. He added: “I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.” Hayes received an annual compensation package of $23 million in 2021, an 11% increase over the previous year.

“The weapons, vehicles and technologies promoted at this arms show have profound implications for human rights in this country and around the world,” said Brent Patterson, Director of Peace Brigades International Canada. “What is celebrated and sold here means human rights violations, surveillance and death.”

Canada has become one of the world’s top arms dealers globally, and is the second biggest weapons supplier  to the Middle East region. Most Canadian arms are exported to Saudi Arabia and other countries engaged in violent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, even though these customers were repeatedly implicated in serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Since the beginning of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen in early 2015, Canada has exported approximately $7.8 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia, primarily armored vehicles produced by CANSEC exhibitor GDLS. Now in its seventh year, the war in Yemen has killed over 400,000 people, and created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Exhaustive analysis  by Canadian civil society organizations has credibly shown these transfers constitute a breach of Canada’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which regulates the trade and transfer of weapons, given well-documented instances of Saudi abuses against its own citizens and the people of Yemen. International groups like the Yemen-based Mwatana for Human Rights, as well as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have also documented the devastating role of bombs produced by CANSEC sponsors like Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin in air strikes on Yemen that hit, among other civilian targets, a marketplace, a wedding, and a school bus.

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Article continued from left column)

“Outside its borders, Canadian corporations plunder the oppressed nations of the world while Canadian imperialism benefits from its role as a junior partner in U.S.-led imperialism’s vast complex of military and economic warfare,” said Aiyanas Ormond, with the International League of Peoples’ Struggle. “From its plunder of the mineral wealth of the Philippines, to its support for Israeli occupation, apartheid and war crimes in Palestine, to its criminal role in the occupation and plunder of Haiti, to its sanctions and regime change machinations against Venezuela, to arms exports to other imperialist states and client regimes, Canadian imperialism uses its military and police to attack the people, suppress their just struggles for self-determination and for national and social liberation and to maintain its regime of exploitation and plunder. Let’s join together to shut down this war machine!”

In 2021, Canada exported more than $26 million in military goods to Israel, an increase of 33% over the previous year. This included at least $6 million in explosives. Last year, Canada signed a contract to purchase drones from Israel’s largest weapons maker and CANSEC exhibitor Elbit Systems, which supplies 85% of drones used by the Israeli military to monitor and attack Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. An Elbit Systems subsidiary, IMI Systems, is the main provider of 5.56 mm bullets, the same type of bullet that was used by Israeli occupation forces to murder Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

CANSEC exhibitor the Canadian Commercial Corporation, a government agency that facilitates deals between Canadian arms exporters and foreign governments recently brokered a $234 million deal to sell 16 Bell 412 helicopters to the military of the Philippines.  Ever since his election in 2016, the regime of Philippine president  Rodrigo Duterte has been marked by a reign of terror  that has killed thousands under the guise of an anti-drug campaign, including journalists, labor leaders, and human rights activists.

12,000 attendees are expected to gather for the CANSEC arms fair this year, bringing together an estimated 306 exhibitors, including weapons manufacturers, military technology and supply companies, media outlets, and government agencies. 55 international delegations are also slated to attend. The weapons expo is organized by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), which represents more than 900 Canadian defense and security companies.

BACKGROUND

Hundreds of lobbyists in Ottawa represent arms dealers not only competing for military contracts, but lobbying the government to shape the policy priorities to fit the military equipment they are hawking. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, BAE, General Dynamics, L-3 Communications, Airbus, United Technologies and Raytheon all have offices in Ottawa to facilitate access to government officials, most of them within a few blocks from Parliament. CANSEC and its predecessor, ARMX, have faced staunch opposition for over three decades. In April 1989, Ottawa City Council responded to opposition to the arms fair by voting to stop the ARMX arms show taking place at Lansdowne Park and other City-owned properties. On May 22, 1989, more than 2,000 people marched from Confederation Park up Bank Street to protest the arms fair at Lansdowne Park. The following day, Tuesday May 23, the Alliance for Non-Violence Action organized a mass protest in which 160 people were arrested. ARMX did not return to Ottawa until March 1993 when it took place at the Ottawa Congress Centre under the rebranded name Peacekeeping ’93. After facing significant protest ARMX didn’t happen again until May 2009 when it appeared as the first CANSEC arms show, again held at Lansdowne Park, which had been sold from the city of Ottawa to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in 1999.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

‘We Refuse to Go On Like This’: US Students Walk Out to Demand Gun Control

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Julia Conley from Common Dreams (licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Students across the United States walked out of their classrooms Thursday to protest gun violence and years of inaction in Washington, D.C. they blame for allowing mass shootings to continue, like the one that killed 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School this week.

At 12:00 p.m. Eastern time, students and teachers at more than 80 elementary, middle, and high schools took part in the nationwide demonstration organized by Students Demand Action, a branch of Everytown for Gun Safety.

“We refuse to go on like this,” tweeted the organization.

“We plan to host a walkout in protest of gun violence in schools and inaction regarding gun laws this Thursday at 11 a.m. in accordance with the nationwide walkout,” wrote  students in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin. “We believe it is very important that our community recognizes the voices of students regarding mass shootings in schools as we are the group most affected by this new reality, yet have the least say in changing the laws and statutes that impact us so much.”

Northwood High School students in Irvine, California condemned “the ‘thoughts and prayers’ of our so-called leaders” and called gun violence and mass shootings, which have taken place at 27 U.S. schools  so far this year, “a symptom of a larger disease of white supremacy, toxic masculinity, and antisemitism that often motivates deranged shooters to carry out these horrors.”

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Do you think handguns should be banned?, Why or why not?

Are we seeing the dawn of a global youth movement?

(Continued from left column)

“We strongly believe in the right of Americans, especially students in light of recent shootings in Texas, to lead a free, prosperous, and secure life in the wealthiest nation on Earth,” they wrote. “We are walking out because we refuse to accept a country where gunfire can ring out at any moment, whether it’s while grocery shopping at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, at a party in San Bernardino, or at graduations across the country. Enough is enough. No more thoughts and prayers.”

The walkouts are being held as representatives of Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, and Everytown join Democratic lawmakers at a rally in Washington, D.C. to demand passage of gun control laws  such as the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 (H.R. 8), which would expand background checks for all gun purchases and transfers, and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 (H.R. 1446), which would close a loophole that allows gun sales without a background check if three businesses days have passed.

“We ask our senators: WHO do you work for?” said  Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action. “Do you work for the 90% of Americans who support common-sense gun safety laws? Or do you work for gun manufacturers who pad their pockets and protect their power while over 110 Americans are shot and killed every day?”

Mia Tretta, a survivor of the Saugus High School shooting in Santa Clarita, California that killed two of her classmates in November 2019, organized a walkout at her school, tweeting, “I’m sorry I couldn’t do my homework, I was planning a life-saving revolution.”

David Hogg, a survivor of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida in February 2018 and co-founder of March for Our Lives, called on  communities across the U.S. to hold vigils at their local elementary schools Thursday evening and suggested students hold regular walkouts until legislative action is taken.

“Legislators need to keep in mind that if we can’t vote now, they need to listen because we will be able to vote eventually,” Maddie Ahmadi, a 17-year-old advisory board member for Students Demand Action, told  Bloomberg. “And if they are not hearing us and they are not passing common sense gun legislation, we are going to vote them out of office.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Women of the World Call for Peace

. WOMEN’S EQUALITY . .

An article from Scheerpost

Presented on May 10th, 2022, by Women Transforming Our Nuclear Legacy, a coalition of the women leaders and activists from around the world call for peace in Ukraine and and an end to the threat of nuclear war. 


Video of their videoconference

Born out of an American-Russian Women’s Dialogue and Peacebuilding Initiative founded just over a year ago, the group started with the goal of improving US-Russia relations, reducing tensions, averting a nuclear war, and working together for the disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons.

Over the last year, they wrote multiple open letters published in both countries calling for peace. Their most recent open letter, published a week before the Russian invasion of Ukraine link stood with Ukraine calling for peace. They have issued an appeal for peace in Ukraine calling for an immediate ceasefire “to stop the killing, bloodshed, and immense human suffering.”

(continued in right column)

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

Do women have a special role to play in the peace movement?

(continued from left column).

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES:

Mairead Corrigan Maguire is a Nobel Peace Laureate and Co-founder of Peace People, Northern Ireland. Mairead was the aunt of three Maguire children who died as a result of being hit by an Irish Republican Army getaway car after its driver was shot by a British soldier. She responded to the violence facing her family and community by organizing massive peace demonstrations appealing for an end to the bloodshed and a nonviolent solution to the conflict. Mairead was awarded the l976 Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous efforts in co-founding a movement to help bring about peace and end the violence arising out of the ethnic political conflict in Northern Ireland. Since receiving the award, she has dedicated her life to promoting peace and disarmament, both in Northern Ireland and around the world.  

Dr. Paula Garb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Peacemaking Practice at George Mason University. For the past twenty-eight years, Dr. Garb has facilitated citizen dialogues and taught peaceful problem-solving skills in conflict zones of the South Caucasus and to gang intervention workers in Southern California. She also taught mediation and conflict resolution at the University of California, Irvine for twenty-five years.  Dr. Garb serves on the board of UCI’s Center for Citizen Peacebuilding which she co-founded and co-directed for twenty years. She has also published numerous books and journal articles on peacebuilding. 

Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez is a diplomat and academic who previously served as the Ambassador from Costa Rica to the United Nations in Geneva. In 2017, Ambassador Whyte presided over the UN Conference that negotiated and adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Facing extraordinary time pressure, and, at times, contentious debate, Ambassador Whyte facilitated the adoption of this landmark agreement by a vote of 122 nations in favor, one against, and one abstention. Among her many accomplishments, she is also the first woman and the youngest person ever to serve as vice minister of Foreign Affairs in Costa Rica. 

Cynthia Lazaroff is the Senior Creative Producer for US-Russia Relations: The Quest for Stability, a seven-part multimedia documentary produced with philanthropic support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Over the past forty years, Cynthia has been engaged in Track II and 1.5 diplomacy with Russia and the former Soviet Union. Cynthia is the Founder & Director of Women Transforming Our Nuclear Legacy  & NuclearWakeUpCall.Earth.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, WOMEN'S EQUALITY

Culture of Peace Foundation: We join the Global Days of Action to Reduce Military Expenditure and to demand a budget for peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Fundación Cultura de Paz

The Culture of Peace Foundation has joined the call of the Global Days of Action for the Reduction of Military Spending (GDAMS) that calls for a budget for peace policies. As noted in the appeal, that You can read here, “The $1.98 trillion spent on armies in 2020 did not provide us with true security, rather bloated budgets for weapons and war left us mired in a cycle of violence. It is time for us to come together and call on governments around the world to cut military spending and instead invest in common and human security. It is time to give peace a budget.”


We are seeing today, with the military invasion of Ukraine, that both political leaders and the media “continue to push solutions focused on military power projection and deterrence” and seem to advocate increasing already bloated military budgets. But it is clear that militarism has not brought us more security.

(Article continued in right column)

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

Question related to this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from left column)

As noted in the appeal, “The collective military spending of NATO members, which is 18 times that of Russia, did not prevent President Putin from invading Ukraine. Even so, its Member States have reaffirmed their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on military spending in response to Russia’s war of aggression. By now it should be obvious that some countries trying to outspend others on weapons of all sizes is not an adequate defense and security strategy. It hasn’t worked in the past and it never will.”

On the other hand, the member organizations point out, “the global commitment to militarization also destroys trust and undermines cooperation efforts between countries.” Governments must invest in cooperation and multilateralism, “putting more options on the table than the threat of war and annihilation.” We suffer from many threats, such as the climate crisis or growing social inequality, in the face of which hardly any funds are allocated to face them compared to military spending, so that “the collective action necessary to face the global emergencies of our time remains in the background”.

Military spending does not guarantee our security “and prevents the global collaboration that is essential for human well-being.” For this reason, the adhering organizations call on “civil society and the media to press for large reductions in military spending, instead of the increases announced in many countries.”

“We demand that governments reduce their military spending and instead allocate funds to common and human security, investing in the true needs of people and the planet to build a just and sustainable peace.

If we want to give peace a chance, we have to give it a budget.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

The Second Level Geopolitical War in Ukraine Takes Over

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A blog by Richard Falk reprinted by Transcend Media Service

. . . It has become increasingly clear to the world that there is not one, but two, actually three, distinct levels of conflict embedded in what the world’s media and political leadership deceptively insist on calling the ‘Ukraine War.’ The first level was initiated on February 24, 2022 when Russia launched an aggressive war against Ukraine imperiling the country’s most basic sovereign rights as well as its territorial integrity. The second level was difficult to discern in the first weeks of the war, but became soon evident as the NATO countries led by the United States placed an increasing emphasis on lending escalating support to Ukraine’s adopted goals of achieving an unexpected military victory. This support took various forms including the steady supply of heavy weaponry, robust financial assistance, punitive sanctions, and a drumbeat of ‘official’ demonization of Russia and its leadership. In the beginning it seemed appropriate to lend support to Ukraine as the target of aggression, and hail the resistance efforts led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, in defense of a relatively small country being overrun by a large neighbor.


Richard Falk

Even this widely endorsed narrative was deceptive and one-sided as it overlooked the provocative nature of NATO expansion, abetted in Ukraine’s case by American interference in the internal politics of the country to help turn the political tide against Russia. It is in this internal setting that on which the third level of the war persists as there is no doubt that anti-Russian elements in Western Ukraine were deeply abusive toward the majority Russian speaking population in Eastern Ukraine known as the Donbas region. The non-implementation of the Minsk Agreements negotiated in 2014-15 to protect the Ukrainians in the East and accept a high degree of autonomy led to oppressive policies by the Kyiv government giving added strength to separatist aspirations. It remains uncertain as whether the Russia/Ukraine level of combat can be resolved without serious addressing Russian and Donbas concerns at the core of this third level of conflict.

What has been apparent to critics for some time is that Western diplomacy has increasingly become primarily committed to the second level Geopolitical War even at the cost of greatly prolonging and aggravating the Ukrainian war on the ground and producing growing risks of a wider war. Only in the past few days has this priority been more or less acknowledged by high officials in the U.S. Government, most dramatically in the visit of Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, and Austin, Secretary of Defense to Ukraine and later in their meeting with NATO counterparts in Europe. What was revealed was that the number one policy goal of the U.S. was ‘the weakening of Russia’ made to military planners a credible undertaking by the unexpected resistance capabilities of Ukrainian armed forces bolstered by a show unified nationalist resolve. In keeping with this line of thinking, arms shipments to Ukraine were steadily increased in quantity and quality. More tellingly, so-called heavy armaments with offensive capabilities began to be supplied to Ukraine, with militarists in NATO countries even proposing attacking targets in Russia. As this dynamic unfolded, Germany joined in by dramatically reversed its proclaimed policy of not providing heavy weaponry. The whole tenor of assistance from NATO countries shifted from helping Ukraine resist to addressing the geopolitical agenda with its two goals: inflicting a humiliating defeat on Russia and signaling China not to indulge any doubts about Western resolve to defend Taiwan.

Despite this shift in emphasis, earlier concerns with escalating the Geopolitical War with Russia have not been entirely abandoned. Efforts continue to be made to ensure that U.S. and Russia to not engage in direct combat with opposing weapons system and to not produce situations that push Russian toward a reliance on nuclear weapons to avoid battlefield defeat. White House perceptions of what will cause such recourse to nuclear weaponry at this point seems dangerous divergent. It is widely reported that the Biden presidency continues to resist pressures to establish No Fly Zone in Ukraine because it would greatly heighten prospects for direct combat encounters between the NATO and Russia, and with it risks of this new species of cold war turning uncontrollably hot. But what of Biden’s demonization of Russia as guilty of genocide and Putin as a war criminal who should be driven from power? And what of the continuous increases of political, financial, and military assistance to Ukraine coupled with the absence of any hint that a diplomatic alternative exists that would stop the killing. This has been missing all along. There have been no indications by Washington of receptivity to a diplomacy emphasizing the primary humanitarian imperative of an immediate ceasefire and a political process of compromise and mutual security between Russia and Ukraine the overt international antagonists. It is missing because the U.S. on prosecuting the Geopolitical War as long as necessary, and this  takes precedence over the wellbeing of the Ukrainian people, or even the rationally conceived self-interest of the NATO powers.

Zelensky early in the war indicated receptivity to a ceasefire and political compromise, including an acceptance of permanent neutrality for Ukraine, signaled his willingness to meet with Putin to agree upon a process. As time passes, however, Zelensky has pulled back from this dual stance of armed resistance and peace diplomacy, and come to adopt a position that appears seamless with that of the U.S. as if his priority had also shifted to the level 2 Geopolitical War.

My conjecture is that Zelensky, although displaying great talents as a wartime resistance leader has very little sophistication about international relations in general, and seems susceptible to this more militarist line bolstered by promises of decisive support from Washington and possible pressures from his own supposedly hawkish general staff. After all, Zelensky’s background is in theater, until recently he was a performing comedian without any signs of awareness of the wider risks to Ukraine if it subordinates its national interests to the logic of going on with the Geopolitical War wherever it might lead.

As expected, Moscow has already reacted to this escalation of this second level war by warning that it will not back down, but will take all necessary steps to protect its national security interests, intimating if it comes to that, a readiness to have recourse to nuclear weapons. Such inflamed atmospherics can easily produce accidental or preemptive acts that accelerate escalation, which is especially serious in the current context that lacks crisis management links of the sort established between Moscow and Washington in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It took that close encounter back in 1962 with its apocalyptic war scenario that led these superpower antagonists to understand that they had averted a monumental mutual catastrophe by sheer luck, and must take steps to avoid future drifts toward nuclear war however great the crisis in their relationship.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

While most attention is focused on the inter-governmental play of forces it is helpful to take account of other perspectives: civil society peace initiatives, the views of the Global South, and the initiatives of the UN Secretary General. These perspectives call attention to the startling fact that alternatives to aggressive war and geopolitical ambition exist. The Western media blithely hides the awkward fact that Russia is more globally supported in the Geopolitical War than is the United States, preferring the balances of multipolarity to the hegemonies of unipolarity. The Global North controls the discourse prevailing on the most influential media platforms, creating the misleading impression that the whole world, except the outliers, are content with U.S. leadership.

Civil Society Initiatives

Almost from the day the Russian attack began, peace activists and NGOs concerned in some way with peace, security, and humanitarianism urged an end to the killing by way of a ceasefire and some political process that dealt with the level 1 and 3 grievances. This is not to say there were not sharp tensions within civil society, especially surrounding how to interpret the pre-war NATO maneuvers  or the Russian manipulation of the strife in Donbas. By and large the liberal and left liberal mainstream supported outright condemnation of Russian aggression, but favored an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to ending the war and mitigating the humanitarian emergency of death, devastation, and displacement. Those who can be crudely identified as the anti-imperial left tended to excuse or at least place major responsibility for the outbreak of war on the context largely fashioned by Western provocations (especially NATO expansion) and interference in Ukraine’s internal politics since 2014 as did some on the extreme right who identified with Putin’s authoritarianism as future wave of world politics.

What contrasted the civil society perspectives in spite of their diversity, with NATO/mainstream media postures, was their shared stress on stopping the killing, the relevance of diplomacy, and their implicit or explicit refusal to condone recourse to the Level 2 Geopolitical War. Typical examples of civil society proposals can be found in the Pugwash Peace Proposal and the Just World Education booklet distributed under the title “Ukraine: Stop the Carnage, Build the Peace”(available from Amazon or from www.justworldeducational.org, containing eight policy recommendations).

The Voice of the Global South

Given little notice in the Global North was the refusal of the greater part of the Global South to support the mobilization of coercive and punitive sanctions diplomacy directed at Russia and its leader. This split from the West first became evident in the two votes on Ukraine in the UN General Assembly. The entire world including the most of the main countries in the Global South supported the condemnation of the Level 1 Russian aggression, but either abstained or opposed support for the Level 2 Geopolitical War Initiated by the U.S. against Russia in the early stages of the attack on Ukraine. As Trita Parti of the Washington-based think tank, Quincy Institute, pointed out much of the Global South actually supported Russia in the Geopolitical War context, which was interpreted as the U.S. commitment to extending the mandate contained in a unipolar world order of the sort it had acted upon since the Soviet collapse and the end of the Cold War. The Global South greatly preferred the dynamics of a multipolar world, and regarded Russia as seeking in Ukraine to reassert its traditional geopolitical suzerainty over its ‘near abroad,’ a stand against the U.S. as the unopposed guardian of security throughout the planet. It should be appreciated that the U.S. has 97% of overseas military bases and accounts for 40% of the world’s military expenditures, greater than that of the next 11 countries.

The U.S. position is no way renounces traditional geopolitics but seeks to monopolize its implementation. In that spirit it views the attempted reassertion by China and Russia of traditional spheres of influence as an intrusion on international law, while the U.S. at the same time defends its practice of managing the first global sphere of influence in world history. Blinken has said as much, declaring spheres of influence as contrary to international law ever since World War II while simultaneously upholding the sole prerogative of the U.S. when it comes to managing security throughout such a rule-governed world (not to be confused with international law, and its efforts at rule- governance). The UN or international law are marginalized with respect to peace and security in the face of this assumption of geopolitical dominance resting on a mixture of political ambition and military capabilities.

The UN Secretary General

Throughout the Ukraine crisis Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, has articulated a point of view toward the Ukraine Crisis that contrasts in fundamental ways from the positions taken by the political actors on the three levels of conflict. His words and proposals are much closer in spirit to the calls emanating from civil society and the Global South. He expressed the spirit of his endeavors concisely shortly after Russia attacked: “End the hostilities now. Silence the guns now. Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy.” “The ticking clock is a time bomb.”

Traveling in Moscow to meet with Putin and the Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, the SG’s message was more in keeping with diplomatic style, yet similar in content: Focus on ways to end war, and desist from carrying the fight against Russia a day longer. He told Lavrov that “We are extremely interested in finding ways to create the conditions for effective dialogue, create conditions for a ceasefire as soon as possible, create conditions for a peaceful solution.” Putin in the one-on-one meeting with Guterres given the aggressiveness of his counterpart in Washington seemed guardedly receptive to allowing the UN and Red Cross to play a humanitarian role in Ukraine and seemed cautiously receptive to seeking a negotiated end to the conflict on the ground. Of course, it would be premature to have much confidence in any assessment until deeds follow words. At the same time we seem entitled to lament the failure to hear a comparable level of peace-mindedness in Biden’s public statements, which so far seem calculated to stir anti-Russian fury and war-mindedness rather than to set the stage for ending this frightening multi-level conflict.

The stark difference between the UN SG’s approach and that of the geopolitical leadership of the world, should make many persons dedicated to a better future initiate a campaign to set the UN free from its Charter framework that accords primacy explicit primacy to its geopolitical actors.

Concluding Observation

Unraveling the intertwined nature of these three levels of conflict bound up in the ambiguities of the Ukraine War is crucial for an understanding of its complexity and to analyze whether responses and proposals are of service to the general betterment of humanity. It also facilitates the identification of unresponsive policies and proposals that hearken back to the days when matters of war and peace could be left to the discretion of politicians guided by neither ethics nor prudence, but rather have risen to power because they serve the material interests of elites in the private sector. On this basis, I believe that two overriding assessments emerge from an examination of the current interplay of forces in these Ukraine wars: stop the killing by all means available and unconditionally repudiate the Geopolitical War.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, global,

A Nordic Initiative for Peace in Ukraine and Lasting World Peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A proposal by Fredrik S. Heffermehl in Transcend Media Service

To: The Honorable Prime Ministers of the five Nordic countries: Magdalena Anderson, Mette Frederiksen, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, Sanna Marin, and Jonas Gahr Støre

Oslo, 27 April, 2022 – The war in Ukraine once again shows that the world is like a city with brutal gangs constantly roaming the streets, looting and fighting with loads of heavy weapons. No one will ever feel safe in such a city. The same applies at the international level. No amount of weaponry can make us safe. No country will be safe until also neighboring countries can feel safe. The present international system is broken; to avoid future wars we need deep reforms.


Fredrik S. Heffermehl

Once again, now in Ukraine, we have seen that arms cannot prevent war. We should not, in the present state of shock, expand or prolong the militarist traditions that guarantee eternal war and, in the nuclear age, a constant risk of annihilation. Our recommendation is that the five Nordic countries together take an initiative to activate the UN goals of global democracy and collective security. In a renewed UN, the member nations should act in loyal co-operation and take their charter obligations seriously. A most promising step here was yesterday´s resolution in the General Assembly curbing the Security Council veto.

A way out of stalled negotiations can be a major shift of perspective or arena. Mindful that Mikhail Gorbachev called for a disarmament race, and Vladimir Putin has repeatedly proposed a law-based international order, it seems to us that an end to the Ukraine war might be reached by making it part of ending the wider, geopolitical war between the US and Russia.

Fear of US expansion does, of course, not justify Russia´s attack on Ukraine. And yet, it is troubling that the US, with a 40% share of the world’s military budgets and 97% of the military bases abroad, seems to be seeking more influence. The Nordic countries should carefully consider whether four US bases (Norway), NATO membership (Finland, Sweden), further arms purchases (all), will improve their security. Only a year ago the outgoing US president released an attack on Congress. The US power of coercive diplomacy is waning. It is imperative to take the time necessary to thoroughly evaluate the developing world situation and the legitimacy and dangers of taking irreversible steps to increase US power.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

Facing a stream of global crises, humanity can no longer afford wars. We need to cooperate, build solidarity and trust with effective, common enforcement of international law. Instead of complicity in future war crimes, how much more tempting must it not be to instead engineer a Nordic initiative to realize the collective security provisions of the UN Charter?

The Nordic countries enjoy trust and credibility in the world. They are particularly well positioned for an initiative to empower the Security Council and enable it to fulfill its responsibility for maintaining peace. This will require nations to transfer a part of their sovereignty, which Norway and Denmark already have prepared for.* Instead of more NATO, the world urgently needs to unite across all borders, ethnic and religious divisions, political and economic systems, to rebuild, empower and recommit to the United Nations, build peace, and reallocate the expenditures for war to serve the needs of people and nature.

With reverent greetings,

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WATCH
Fredrik S. Heffermehl, Oslo

***

We agree in the essence and would welcome a Nordic peace initiative:

Richard Falk, Santa Barbara

Bruce Kent, London

Tomas Magnusson, Gothenburg

Mairead Maguire, Belfast

David Swanson, Virginia

Alfred de Zayas, Geneva

Jan Öberg, Lund

Hans Christof von Sponeck,

Klaus Schlichtmann, Tokyo

* Two of the Nordic countries already have provisions enabling such transfers of power in their constitutions, Denmark (§ 20), and Norway (§ 115). Similar provisions have also been adopted by Austria (§ 9), Belgium (§ 25), Germany (§ 24), Greece (§ 28), Italy (§ 11), Portugal (§ 7), Spain (§ 93). In Asia: India (§ 51), and Japan (§ 9).

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Statement of The Ukrainian Pacifist Movement Against Perpetuation of War

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement published in Pressenza

Ukrainian Pacifist Movement is gravely concerned about the active burning of bridges for a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on both sides and signals of intentions to continue the bloodshed indefinitely to achieve some sovereign ambitions. We condemn the Russian decision to invade Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which led to a fatal escalation and thousands of deaths, reiterating our condemnation of the reciprocal violations of the ceasefire envisaged in the Minsk agreements by Russian and Ukrainian combatants in Donbas prior to the escalation of Russian aggression.

We condemn the mutual labeling of parties to the conflict as Nazi-alike enemies and war criminals, stuffed into legislation, reinforced by the official propaganda of extreme and irreconcilable hostility. We believe that the law should build peace, not incite war; and history should give us examples of how people can return to peaceful life, not excuses for continuing the war. We insist that accountability for crimes must be established by an independent and competent judicial body in due process of law, in the result of unbiased and impartial investigation, especially in the most serious crimes, such as genocide. We emphasize that the tragic consequences of military brutality must not be used to incite hatred and justify new atrocities, on the contrary, such tragedies should cool the fighting spirit and encourage a persistent search for the most bloodless ways to end the war.

We condemn military actions on both sides, the hostilities which harm civilians. We insist that all shootings should be stopped, all sides should honor the memory of killed people and, after due grief, calmly and honestly commit to peace talks.

We condemn statements on the Russian side about the intention to achieve certain goals by military means if they cannot be achieved through negotiations.

(Continued in right column)

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

How can we be sure to get news about peace demonstrations?

Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

We condemn statements on the Ukrainian side that the continuation of peace talks depends on winning the best-negotiating positions on the battlefield.

We condemn the unwillingness of both sides to a ceasefire during the peace talks.

We condemn the practice of forcing civilians to conduct military service, to perform military tasks, and to support the army against the will of peaceful people in Russia and Ukraine. We insist that such practices, especially during hostilities, grossly violate the principle of distinction between militaries and civilians in international humanitarian law. Any forms of contempt for the human right to conscientious objection to military service are unacceptable.

We condemn all military support provided by Russia and NATO countries for militant radicals in Ukraine provoking further escalation of the military conflict.We call on all peace-loving people in Ukraine and around the world to remain peace-loving people in all circumstances and to help others to be peace-loving people, to collect and disseminate knowledge about a peaceful and nonviolent way of life, to tell the truth, that unites peace-loving people, to resist evil and injustice without violence and debunk myths about necessary, beneficial, inevitable, and just war. We don’t call for any particular action now to ensure that peace plans will not be targeted by hatred and attacks of militarists, but we are confident that pacifists of the world have a good imagination and experience of practical realization of their best dreams. Our actions should be guided by hope for a peaceful and happy future, and not by fears. Let our peace work bring closer the future from dreams.

War is a crime against humanity. Therefore, we are determined not to support any kind of war and to strive for the removal of all causes of war.

UPM
Fb.com/PeaceUkraine
yuriy.sheliazhenko@gmail.com
Tverskyi tupyk street, 9, app. 82
01042
Kyiv
Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Abolition 2000 Member organizations oppose Russian invasion of Ukraine

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from Abolition 2000

Many Abolition 2000 Member organizations and networks have released statements opposing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Included below are links to some of these. A number of the statements have highlighted that the invasion is not only an act of aggression that violates the rights of Ukraine and is inflicting suffering on its people, but also that it threatens to expand to regional war, increases nuclear tensions and raises the risk of nuclear war by accident, crisis escalation or miscalculation.


Photo: Volodymyr Melnyk – Ukraine 123RF

There were also many statements released by Abolition 2000 members prior to the invasion (not included here) calling for diplomacy to resolve the conflict and prevent an outbreak of war. And there are many statements opposing the war by Russian civil society organizations, as well as from the main opposition party in Russia Yabloko party), municipal legislators, musicians, internationally recognized filmmakers, TV hosts, actors, sportspeople, and businesspeople. Click here to see a collection of these in Russian and English.

And there is an international appeal which everyone is invited to endorse Do NOT use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict ; which was launched by Tadatoshi Akiba, former Mayor of Hiroshima and fromer President of Mayors for Peace, an affiliated network of Abolition 2000.

International organizations/networks

Youth Fusion (Youth Network of Abolition 2000): Youth Fusion’s statement on the current situation in Ukraine.
Condemns Russia’s military attack, notes increased nuclear tensions from Putin’s nuclear-capable missile test, and reminds the P5 of their statement that ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.’

IALANA: Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: An Illegal War of Aggression
Highlights that Russia’s invasion is an illegal act of aggression, that leaders of an aggressor state may be individually responsible for the crime of aggression which is one of the core crimes set out in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, and that Putin’s thinly veiled references to resort to nuclear weapons should other states intervene militarily are unlawful threats of force under the UN Charter and according to the 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on nuclear weapons.

World Future Council. World Future Council condemns acts of aggression and calls for restoration of peace and international law

Condemns Russian invasion as illegal, highlights that President Putin has committed a Crime Against Peace for which he is personally accountable as Head of State, calls for non-military means to reverse the aggression as outlined in Articles 33-41 of the UN Charter, warns of the risk of regional war and nuclear war, and supports Russians, Ukrainians and others opposing the war and calling for peace.

World Federalist Movement: Statement on Ukraine.
Calls for adherence to international law as underscored in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and to ensure the safety and protection of all civilians.

United Religions Initiative. A Reflection on Ukraine from United Religions Initiative

Expresses concern for the he Ukrainian people, the Russian people – their families, their children, and their communities, noting that war hurts all people, and has destructive ramifications on nature and our environment.

International Peace Bureau. IPB Statement on Ukraine
Calls for a comprehensive ceasefire, the withdrawal of all troops and a return to the negotiating table. Notes that there is no military solution, only a political solution based on the principles of common security.

Parliamentarians for Global Action: PGA firmly condemns the aggressive war launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine

Calls the invasion an illegal war of agression by the Russian Federation which involves individual criminal responsibility of the Russian leaders, and notes that this responsibility also extends the the eladers of Belarus who are complicit in the invasion. Notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is applicable in the context of the conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, which is a continuum from the situation of unlawful occupation of Donbass and of the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea regarding which Ukraine has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC.Calls for a range of measures whihc could be taken to address the situation.

National/regional organizations and affiliated networks

Peace Action USA. Peace Action Condemns Russia’s Invasion Into Ukraine
Calls for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, the withdrawal of all troops, and a return as soon as possible to diplomatic negotiations. Calls on the US government to contribute generously to humanitarian aid programs to support displaced persons and other victims of this war.

Mayors for Peace European Section. Statement on the War in Ukraine
Urges the Russian government and perpetrators of the current escalation and territorial agression in Ukraine to put an end to hostilities, respect international law and commit to reinvigorated diplomatic efforts. Expresses solidarity with all Mayors, local governments and residents who have been suffering and will now suffer more from this war. Recalls the risk of a nuclear escalation inherent in the conflict, which would result in catastrophic humanitarian consequences not only for our shared continent but the whole world.

Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, Japan Section. Statement at Russia’s Aggression against Ukraine.

Condemns Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, Putin’s threats to possibly use nuclear weapons and his actions of putting the Russian nuclear forces on high alert. The statement laments the Russian violation of the Budapest memorandum which will have serious implications for nuclear non-proliferation.

PNND Japan Statement (English, Japanese).

(Continued in right column)

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

How can we be sure to get news about peace demonstrations?

(Continued from left column)

People for Nuclear Disarmament (Australia). Time for de-escalation not escalation as Putin puts nuclear forces on highest alert.

Notes the move by President Putin to put Russian nuclear forces on highest alert. Outlines how this might lead to nuclear war by miscalculation, malfunction, malware or further escalation. Calls on all nuclear weapon states to reduce risks of nuclear war by announcing no-first-use policies.

Gensuikyo (Japan). Letter of Protest to President Putin

Opposes the invasion as a criminal offence and against the UN Charter. Expresses concern at Russian threats to use nuclear weapons and recalls the P5 statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

Peoples Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and 400 other South Korean NGOs (Republic of Korea). Stop the War in Ukraine! Give Peace a Chance!
Calls on Russia to stop the war and withdraw its troops. Calls on the international community to provide humanitarian support for Ukraine. Notes that all countries, including Russia and Ukraine, have interests related to security assurance, but that these interests should be achieved only by peaceful means and through diplomacy.

Project Ploughshares (Canada). Statement on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
Calls for an immediate cease to Russian military operations in Ukraine, the unequivocally rejection by all nuclear-armed states of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, pursuit of diplomatic solutions, and the provision of humanitarian assistance by the international community.

Pax Christi USA. Statement on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
States that the invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation of international law, and that war is always a defeat for humanity. Expresses concern about the implied threat of the use of nuclear weapons in the conflict. Calls on the U.S. Catholic community to refuse to beat the drums of war and to not support efforts to justify U.S. or NATO military action nor increase the flow of arms into the conflict. Announces Day of Prayer and Fasting for Peace in the Ukraine on March 2.

DFG-VK (German Peace Society). DFG-VK Press release Feb 24, 2022
Calls on all countries to reject Russia’s breach of international law, and the outlawing and prohibition of wars of aggression worldwide and legal consequences for those responsible. Expresses concerns at Putin’s threats to those trying to stop him that he could respond with « the likes of which have never been seen in history »;.

United Nations Association of New Zealand. UNANZ condemns Russian acts of aggression and calls for restoration of peace and international law.
Supports UN Secretary-General’s assessment that the Russian invasion “…is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable. But it is not irreversible.” Calls on the United Nations and the international community to use all non-military means possible, particularly those outlined in Articles 33 – 41 of the UN Charter, to contain and reverse the invasion of Ukraine, and to hold President Putin criminally responsible for the act of aggression (Crime Against Peace), along with other Russian officials who are complicit.

Peace Pledge Union (UK). Peace Pledge Union condemns Russian invasion of Ukraine
Expresses solidarity with peace activists in Russiawho are challenging the actions of the Russian government and armed forces, and concern that many of them have arrested as a result. Applauds any Russian soldiers who refuse to obey orders. Affirms that militarism and war cannot be defeated with more militarism and war.

Western States Legal Foundation (USA). The Peace Movement and the Ukraine War: Where to Now?
Analyzes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an illegal war of aggression. Calls for immediate and unconditional negotiations to end hostilities. Discusses what the war has revealed about the realities of nuclear arsenals and their uses. To address the deeper issues, calls for a global peace movement aligned with no states. Emphasizes the need to develop a better understanding of the root causes of resurgent authoritarian nationalisms, arms racing, and war.

European No to War – No to NATO network. No to nuclear war
Condemns the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, calls for the bombing to stop immediately, the withdrawal of all troops and a return to the negotiating table. Promotes common security based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and an end to NATO enlargement.

Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India). Statement on Ukraine
Calls for an immediate end to the invasion and for wide-ranging peace talks covering all the relevant issues—including security guarantees for the Russian Federation, the freedom and rights of the people of Ukraine which includes the legitimate concerns of the Russian-speaking regions in Ukraine. Expresses concerns about the threats of nuclear weapons use, and about radiation from Chernobyl and possible military damage to other nuclear reactors in Ukraine.

Canadian Voice of Women for Peace. VOW Statement on Ukraine
VOW condemns all acts of war and military aggression in Ukraine and denounces any threats to use nuclear weapons. VOW urgently calls for a comprehensive ceasefire in the region, for the Government of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to immediately demilitarize and de-escalate the conflict, and to resume multilateral diplomatic negotiations based on the United Nations Charter in order to ensure lasting peace and security in Ukraine, Russia, and Eastern Europe

Quaker Peace and Service (UK). Quakers in Britain condemn attack and call for end to fighting
Condemns the Russian invasion and calls for a cessation of fighting and for all parties to observe international law, including international humanitarian law. Calls for humanitarian corridors allowing civilians to flee the fighting, and for efforts to engage in dialogue and preparing the ground for the return of people to their homes.

Mouvement de la Paix (France). Le Mouvement de la Paix condamne fermement les actes de guerre de la Russie
Condemns Russia’s acts of war and calls for action to say no to war. Calls for non-violent, political, diplomatic and negotiated solutions in the spirit of the United Nations Charter. Urges reduction in arms spending and elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Promotes common security framework in Europe as envisaged by the OSCE.

Canadian Pugwash Group (Canada). Canadian Pugwash Group Condemns the Russian Attack on Ukraine
Calls on the Russian Federation to cease all hostilities and to withdraw all its forces from the territory of Ukraine. Encourages all European countries through the OSCE to further refine a European security architecture based on the renunciation of force and resolution of disputes exclusively through peaceful means. Expresses deep concern about the indirect threat of the use of nuclear weapons invoked by the Russian President and strongly affirms that nuclear weapons should have no place in international security.

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (USA). On the Invasion of Ukraine
Condemns the invasion of Ukraine. Holds hope that Russia will not succeed and that the wishes of Ukrainian people for peace and freedom will prevail. Includes information on ways people can give humanitatian support as well as solidarity and political support to Ukrainians in their opposition to the war.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global