DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Richard Miller in Common Dreams (licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

(Editor’s note: We recently published an article in CPNN with polls showing that a majority of Russians no longer desire the war with Ukraine despite the dictatorial suppression of opposition to the war by the Putin regime. Now here is an article with polls showing similar results in Ukraine despite the dictatorial suppression of opposition to the war by the Zelensky regime.

Since negotiations with Russia ended in late March, the president of Ukraine has proclaimed a goal of uncompromising victory: “Free our entire territory. Drive the occupiers out of all our regions.” The battle to achieve this victory has relied on a vast surge of military equipment, of steeply increasing sophistication, destructiveness and reach, provided by the United States, in military aid in excess of $15 billion . How well does the uncompromising battle fit Ukrainians’ desires? Not well enough to justify the U.S. government’s encouragement and support.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of Ukrainians want Russia to leave the territory it controls. Even in eastern regions controlled by pro-Russian separatists, only a minority wanted to be part of Russia, pre-invasion. And, of course, there is no doubt that the consequences of battles to drive Russia out of Ukrainian territory are, to put it mildly, undesired. In the estimate of the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, well over 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers and as many as 40,000 Ukrainian civilians have already been killed or wounded. Seven million people have fled abroad , from a country where forty one million had lived outside of Crimea before the war, and six and a half million are internally displaced by the war’s devastation. But the moral justification of U.S. support and encouragement for an uncompromising battle depends on a more difficult question, “To what extent do people where the carnage of an uncompromising battle would be concentrated support it despite its toll?” The most defensible answer is an important reason why the U.S. should change course.

Polls of Ukrainian opinion exclude some areas where the toll of an uncompromising battle to expel Russia would be especially severe. A large majority of people living in Crimea identify as ethnically Russian. There is no reason to suppose that they would willingly endure the brutal mayhem required to restore Ukrainian sovereignty. Russian-controlled areas in the east that included extensive separatist-controlled territory pre-invasion are not surveyed now. In the 2019 poll of people in separatist-controlled regions that I cited, conducted by a Berlin-based think tank, 45 percent supported integration with Russia and 31 percent supported special autonomy status within Ukraine. The only news story in U.S. media that I am aware of that is based on extensive on-the-ground interviews in contested separatist regions was published in the New York Times on January 16 this year; it reported widespread support for separatism, substantial opposition, and the longing of most people for the end of the grave burdens of conflict that they had already endured.

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

In polls of the remaining territory, responses favoring an uncompromising battle are much less common where its carnage would be concentrated. For example, in a May 19-24 telephone poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 61% supported continuing “opposing Russian aggression until all of Ukraine, including Crimea, is under Kyiv control,” but in the east, where dangers of carnage are greatest, this was the response of a minority, 45%. This tepid response is already disturbing, given the geographic limitation. KIIS’s comment on a May survey points to another, non-geographic factor: “In our opinion, a more significant impact on representativeness may have [been] either a lower willingness to participate in polls of citizens with ‘pro-Russian’ moods, or the insincerity of those who still took part in the poll (given the obvious facts and prevailing views in the media about the Russian invasion, some citizens ‘publicly’ do not want to say what they really think).”

A long history of political repression contributes to that reluctance. Since well before the current invasion, Zelensky has vigorously repressed potential sources of support for concessive negotiations.

One dual target has been the second-largest party in parliament, the Opposition Platform for Life, which is inclined to accommodation of Russia and led Zelensky’s party in some polls when the repression began, and Viktor Medvedchuk, its chairperson and major financier. On February 3, 2021, three television stations owned by Medvedchuk were banned . Though it lacked the constitutional authority to do so, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council seized Medvedchuk’s assets on February 19, 2021 and put him under house arrest in May. These measures were followed by imprisonment shortly after Russia’s invasion. By the start of 2022, the government had banned most of the main opposition media. On March 20, 2022, Zelensky banned eleven parties, including the Opposition Platform, and signed a decree merging all national TV channels into a single platform.

These actions, along with many other restrictive measures, help to explain why Freedom House’s “democracy score” for Ukraine throughout Zelensky’s presidency has been substantially lower than Hungary’s under Viktor Orban. Prior to these constraints, a June 2017 poll of people outside the separatist regions and Crimea asked about compromise with Russia and separatists for the sake of peace in the eastern provinces. 52 percent responded that “it is necessary to accept compromises, but not all of them.” 18 percent (25 percent in the east) endorsed the option, “Peace ‘at any price,’ it is necessary to make any compromise – with anyone and on anything.”

Faced with challenges to U.S. support for an uncompromising battle, its defenders claim that it reflects the will of the people of Ukraine. If most of those who are in most danger do not willingly accept the price of what the U.S. sustains and encourages, this is a powerful reason why the U.S. should change course.

After nine months of war, carnage and surging armament, concessive peace is still feasible, a peace that the U.S. could promote by moderating its acceleration of military provision, moderating the tone and content of its public calls for Ukrainian victory, and engaging in quiet diplomacy with both sides. It would consist of ceasefire around lines of control not recognized as sovereign borders by Ukraine or Russia, lines including Russia’s control of Crimea and of significant gains since its invasion: substantial expansion in Luhansk and Donetsk beyond the eastern regions that separatists had controlled and a wide southern corridor from there to Crimea, removing pre-war obstacles to supplies and water. Respect for the desires of people in Ukraine is no excuse for rejecting this change in the U.S. response to the Ukraine war.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Andrey Pertsev in Meduza (Translation by Anna Razumnaya)

Russia’s ongoing military defeats in Ukraine and the social burden of mobilization are rapidly cooling the public’s support for the war. Meduza has gained access to the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the Kremlin “for internal use only.” According to the study conducted by the Federal Protective Service (FSO), 55 percent of Russians favor peace talks with Ukraine, while only a quarter of the respondents still support continuing the war.

Internal polling data commissioned by the Kremlin

The FSO poll does not diverge all that much from the results of an October public-opinion study conducted by the Levada Center, Russia’s only large independent sociological institute. In the Levada study, 57 percent of respondents said that they supported, or would probably support, peace talks with Ukraine. Only 27 percent expressed the same range of support for continuing the war.

The FSO’s own polling indicates that Russians’ attitudes about the war have changed. As late as July 2022, only 30 percent of survey respondents favored ending the war by peace negotiations. Comparing the new results to those collected in the summer make the shift obvious:

Two sources close to the Putin administration told Meduza that the Kremlin now plans to limit the polling data that VTsIOM (the Russian Public Opinion Research Center) releases to the public. One source said, “You can get all kinds of results these days — better not to do it at all.” Also speaking to Meduza, a political consultant who works frequently with the Kremlin explained that it’s “best not to reveal the dynamics” of the Russians’ changing attitudes towards the war.

Denis Volkov, the director of the Levada Center, says the share of Russians likely to support peace talks with Ukraine began to grow rapidly following Putin’s September 21 mobilization decree:

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

This is sheer reluctance to take part in the war personally. They continue to support it, but they have very little desire to participate themselves. Besides, their support was, from the very start, something they declared with regard to what they perceived as having nothing to do with themselves: “Life goes on — it’s even getting better.” Now, the risks are greater, and people want to start the talks. Still, the majority of people leave this to the government: “We’d like it, but it’s up to them to decide.”

Sociologist Grigory Yudin also links rising public support for peace talks to Russia’s draft. This fall, he says, Russians came face-to-face with the “crumbling of their everyday lives and a sense of danger.” Their “loss of faith in the victory” and the “absence of a convincing account of how exactly Russia might win” also contribute to the shift in opinions, says Yudin. “I wouldn’t be surprised,” Yudin added,

if this turned out to be mixed with an acute sense of danger to the country itself. In this sense, peace talks followed by legalizing the annexations should make the country safer.

Yudin says the public’s resentment for how the war is going is not far from outright “apathy.” Still, he doesn’t rule out the possibility of anti-war demonstrations in Russia:

Protests do not occur simply because people think something but because something makes protest possible. Russia’s protest potential is very high. When possibilities present themselves, there will be protests. Quite possibly, we won’t have to wait that long.

Kremlin insiders who spoke to Meduza, however, said there’s little concern in the administration about potential mass protests, though they acknowledged that “it’s best not to raise the temperature, and not to anger people if not necessary.” Russia’s state media and propaganda outlets, moreover, have already received instructions “not to dwell on the war.” According to Meduza’s sources, the mass media is now being told to focus instead on a “more positive agenda.”

Political scientist Vladimir Gelman says the dynamics of Russian public opinion are unlikely to pressure the Putin administration into honest negotiations with Ukraine. The Russian side, he argues, is “not ready to make concessions,” and the prospects of any peace talks depend largely on what happens in combat — not in opinion polls.

Last October, Meduza wrote about Vladimir Putin’s unwillingness to abandon his claim on the Ukrainian regions he’s now annexed outright. The Kremlin’s recent hints at possible peace talks are likely a scheme to buy time to prepare a new offensive. Meduza’s sources close to the administration say the president still clings to his plans in Ukraine, and officials will reportedly resume Russia’s “partial” mobilization in the winter. Just how many more men the Kremlin hopes to draft remains unclear.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Message published by Mouvement de la Paix (translation by CPNN)

Dear friends! I am delighted to bring greetings from Kyiv, from the Ukrainian Peace Movement, to the Congress of the French Peace Movement. I wish you success in your initiatives to actively defend peace in Ukraine, to promote diplomacy and to make the structural changes necessary to institutionalize and strengthen the culture of peace, to help different people to live together on a common planet as a great family and to manage conflict non-violently.

Winners of this year’s MacBride Peace Prize. Yurii Sheliazhenko is third from the left.

The Ukrainian Peace Movement has adopted a strategic statement entitled “Peace Agenda for Ukraine and the World“, which says that we consider as the goals of our peace movement and all peace movements in the world to uphold the right of conscientious objection to military service, to end the war in Ukraine and all wars in the world by peaceful means, and to secure lasting peace and development for all peoples of the planet. To achieve these goals, we must speak the truth about the evil and deception of war, learn and teach practical knowledge about peaceful living without violence or with its minimization, and we will help the needy, especially those affected by wars and unjust coercion to support the military or participate in war. This is our vision for the long-term strategy of the peace movement, and I hope this vision will be useful to you.

Peace movements need a long-term strategy because warmongers have long-term strategies. Military production complexes generate insane profits, and their media successfully turn militant populists into glorious heroes blaming all problems on the foreign enemy. Ruling elites are content with war being mass murder organized by governments that have failed to resolve their differences peacefully.

Too rarely do we hear responsible voices calling for a diplomatic solution, and I’m glad to see President Macron among those voices, but many who speak for peace are still bound by an old misconception that diplomacy is no substitute but completes the war machine. And this old misconception disempowers civil society by allowing militarists to hijack the political agenda, while evading democratic accountability. The military-industrial complex devours in obscurity the lion’s share of public finances, now intentionally inflated to feed beasts of war. If they position themselves as defenders of the people, can they defend us from poverty, food and energy shortages? Will they defend us from climate change with a nuclear winter and kill all life on the planet? For these defenders, the first enemy is a peaceful citizen who does not believe that war is a meaning of life and that the army must always be in command; they fight for power and defend those in power, not civilians abused by war. All war is a gross violation of human rights, and it starts by turning civilians into soldiers against their will.

Make no mistake: war profiteers and opportunistic warmongers don’t care about people’s suffering, they only care about their gains which increase as the conflict goes on, so they will perpetuate war for as long as possible. Their excuses are endless and miserable: the sanctity of the land which is supposed to cost human sacrifice; deep wrongs meant to make war right; etc But no war ever was, is, or will be inevitable, necessary, just, or beneficial, and if you think a war was or is an exception to that rule, you simply haven’t studied your war critically enough. Any war is beneficial for some and disastrous for many. War profiteers in Eastern and Western capitals have invested too much in the war, they intend to get the maximum in return without hesitation, ignoring the blood and tears of the civilian populations.

Ukraine, like France and all of Europe, is facing a harsh winter. My electricity is out almost all day, every day. Almost half of the energy infrastructure in Ukraine is in ruins, we have lost a large part of the GDP and the economy continues to shrink, tens of thousands of people are killed, some sources say that about a hundred thousands, millions have left the country. Russia continues its conquest of the Donbass, mercilessly bombarding the rest of Ukraine with hundreds of rockets, and the Ukrainian army takes a counter-offensive position in the south after the recapture of Kherson.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

To stop the war, we need a ceasefire and peace talks without preconditions. But President Putin refuses to negotiate peace without Ukraine recognizing Russian control over Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhya and Kherson regions while President Zelensky refuses to negotiate peace unless Russia withdraws its troops from Ukraine, agree to pay reparations for Ukrainian losses and try Putin for a crime of aggression. When Zelensky rushed to accuse Russia of attacking Poland with a missile after a tragic accident with a Ukrainian anti-missile, he tried to engage NATO on the battlefield on the Ukrainian side, as he had already done in calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone. It’s not just his own radicalism, it’s the policy of his administration’s hawkish American advisers who dream of replacing the United Nations with the NATO at the Cost of a Third World War. His speech at the G20 summit, where he insisted that Russia must be punished, not negotiated with, was ridiculously turned into good peace formula. If you have any doubts about whether this is a call for peace or not, just look at the Kyiv Security Pact announced in Zelensky’s speech, written by officials in his office making teams with the same warmongering American advisers: this document indicates that Ukraine will need military assistance from the EU and NATO which must fight Russia for several decades, and all adult Ukrainian civilians must be transformed into soldiers. Imagine war in Europe in the next ten, twenty, thirty years and more hysterical calls for the production of guns instead of butter. It’s a very serious and sinister plan, and it’s already in the works. Ukrainian youth are forbidden to cross the border, even to study in European universities, and the courts impose prison sentences on conscientious objectors to military service, trampling on the fundamental value of human rights while Zelensky hypocritically makes himself the heroic defender of Western values, turning Eastern Europe into the Middle East.

I know that the French peace movement discusses ways to stop the war. The world peace conference is a good idea, and the United Nations should play a role. But diplomats are used to being messengers of war, to change you have to change the system. The more peace institutions the better; it might be useful to create a ministry of peace. But nothing can replace the leading role of civil society and citizen diplomacy. Only the voices of the people, streets full of anti-war slogans could make it clear that humanity will not tolerate militarized economy, politics and culture. We must demand deep reforms towards non-violent governance here and now. Calls for scrapping guns, disbanding armies and turning military bases into homeless hostels and art galleries should be heard everywhere, on either side of the front line, so that no sane person can accuse peace-loving people of “treason”.

The solidarity of the peace movement in all corners of the planet is crucial, and we, the Ukrainian peace movement, are proud to have friends in the Russian and Belarusian peace movements, calling for peace together in different international forums. It is a time for solidarity between people who speak peace in different languages, who pray or think about peace with different beliefs and worldviews, who seek, teach and experience peace in different academic disciplines, who work for peace in multiple professions, — but not professional killers, let’s be clear, — all the billions of members of the human family suffering from endless wars must contribute to the cause of peace, and the sooner their conscience will be awake, the better. One day, eight billion people will cry “peace” so loudly that the war profiteers will have to walk away, and the time will come to admit and right wrongs, find reconciliation, and enjoy lasting peace on Earth. In conclusion, I reiterate a century-old truth: war is a crime against humanity, therefore, we must be determined not to support any kind of war and to fight for the elimination of all causes of war. .

The war system exists by popular consent. How long could armies continue to shed blood without popular support, in the face of fiscal resistance, strikes and streets full of anti-war demonstrations? If everyone refuses to kill, no war will be possible. We can and must eliminate the causes of war, which are not demonic enemies but ignorance and overinvestment in stupid militarism. No war could last forever. In November 1918, the first world war ended, and it was too long and devastating because of the stubborn pursuit of victories, but people had hope for the end of the war, and the hope came true , then wars were prohibited by international law. It’s time to make the law work. Let’s hope and act non-violently to end the war in Ukraine! Because, as the Ukrainian poet Ivan Franko wrote during the First World War: ,The pure sky is proudly azure, when the bloodshed of inhuman war has ceased, And the peace endures.

Yurii Sheliazhenko, Ph.D. (Law)
+380973179326
Executive Secretary, Ukrainian Pacifist Movement
Board member, European Bureau for Conscious Objection (Brussels, Belgium)
Member of the Board of Directors, World BEYOND War (Charlottesville, VA, United States)
Member of the Council, International Peace Bureau (Berlin, Germany) LL.M., B.Math, Master of Mediation and Conflict Management

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Frankfurter Info (translation by CPNN)

After a two-year break, the nationwide Peace Council 2022 will take place again as a face-to-face event on December 10th and 11th, 2022 in the Philipp-Scheidemann-Haus in Kassel. Under the heading “On the way to a new world order – world war or socio-ecological turn to peace” we want to assess the political situation and discuss conclusions for our further work in the peace movement.

This peace meeting comes at a time

• when the Ukraine war escalates into an open proxy war between NATO and Russia, while at the same time diplomatic negotiation channels and peace plans are blocked;

• when a developing new world order goes hand in hand with a parallel threat to humanity through nuclear self-destruction and the prevention of the necessary socio-ecological turn to peace;

• when the consequences of the EU economic war in Germany leads to massive social protests;

• when an open debate on the topics mentioned is greatly restricted and there is also a great need for discussion within the peace movement.

The program for this year’s Peace Council in the Philipp-Scheidemann-Haus in Kassel is now available online on the homepage at https://friedensratschlag.de

CPNN translation of programme

Germany-wide peace council in Kassel on December 10th and 11th, 2022

On the way to a new world order – World War or socio-ecological turn to peace

Block I a: Sat. 12:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. (plenum)

Panel: Global upheaval and new world order with Jörg Kronauer, Christin Bernhold, Peter Wahl, Karin Kulow

Lecture: German great power ambitions in the context of new NATO strategy and EU militarization by Juergen Wagner

Lecture: Dark Eagle – a déjà vu with Pershing 2 by Joachim Wernicke

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

Block I b: Sat. 2:45 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. (workshops)

Discussion on the global upheaval with speakers from Podium Block Ia

The Rise of China and India – Opportunities, Risks and German Ambitions with Uwe Behrens

Current developments in the Near and Middle East with Karin Leukefeld

Geopolitical Dynamics in Africa with Frauke Banse

Anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism in art with Werner Ruf, N.N. Ruangrupa collective (documenta)

Block II a Sat. 16:30 p.m. – 18:00 p.m. (parallel Panel and workshops)

Panel: Ukraine war controversies with Hermann Kopp, Helmut Lohrer, Wiltrud Rösch-Metzler, Franziska Hildebrandt, Ulrich Schneider

Panel: Environmental issues in the peace movement with Jacqueline Andres, Angelika Claussen, Karl-Heinz Peil

Peace Prospects for Afghanistan with Heela Najibullah

Block II b: Sat. 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. (workshops)

Discussion on the Ukraine war with speakers from Podium Block Iia

EU interests – US “vassals” or “cronies”? with Frank Deppe

Domestic political developments in Russia and Ukraine with Ulrich Heyden (via video) and Susann Witt-Stahl

Formation of public opinion and cultivation of the enemy with Ekkehard Sieker

Economic blockades: “civilian alternative” to war? with Joachim Guilliard

Block III a: Sun. 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (plenum)

Lecture: “Liberate the UN, prevent abuse of international organizations” by Hans Christoph von Sponeck

Panel: Negotiated solutions for Ukraine and a new global peace order with Michael von der Schulenburg, Michael Müller, Daniela Dahn Norman Paech

Block III b: Sun. 11:15 a.m. – 12:00 p.m Discussions at standing tables

Block IV: Sun. 12:00 – 14:00 (plenum)

Lecture: Social protests and peace movement by Sevim Dagdelen (Member of the Bundestag Die Linke)

Panel: Challenges for the peace movement through wars and armament with Angelika Claussen (IPPNW), Christoph von Lieven (Greenpeace), Reiner Braun, Robert Weißenbrunner (IG Metall)

Organizational Notes
More information online at https://friedensratschlag.de

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Mouvement de la Paix Corrèze (translation by CPNN)

From Friday November 18 to Sunday November 20, 2022, as part of the national congress of the Mouvement de la Paix, more than 400 people participated or attended one of the initiatives organized in the City Hall of Tours by the Mouvement de la Paix (Art and Peace exhibition, international forum, national congress of the Peace Movement, cultural and musical evenings).

The 18th International Forum brought together around 280 people including 27 delegates from 14 different countries (Algeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Belgium, Germany, USA, Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, Japan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine).

150 activists from 62 departments were delegates to the congress.

At the opening of the exhibition proposed by the Gallery ‘Art and Peace’ we were more than 300 people, many local personalities, representatives of associations and friends of the Peace Movement, trade unions, a good diversity. .. A magnificent exhibition, a forum with a full room, extraordinary cultural evenings, a lively congress

The Mayor of Tours Emmanuel Denis speaking on behalf of the city which made the premises of the City Hall of Tours available for 3 days to the Congress of the Peace Movement, made a beautiful speech rooted in the history of Tours. Among those present at the opening were Deputy Charles Fournier, Vice President of the Center Val-de-Loire Region Jean Patrick Gille, Regional Councilor Isabelle Texeira, Departmental Councilor Mrs Ursula Vogt and many councillors, Deputy Mayor of Tours and the municipalities of the department as well as associations, unions, personalities from the world of culture.

The President of the Centre-pays de Loire Region, François Bonneau, sent a message to the delegates insisting on the importance of peace, the complementary role of communities and citizens in the defense and construction of peace.

In addition, there were representatives of national organizations such as Arac, CGT, Free Thought, ACCA, Teachers for Peace, Pugwash, Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament (IDN), Afcdrp, International Feminist Initiative, Europ Ecology The Greens (EELV), Pcf, Pax Christi, Ccfd, Solidarity peoples, Acat, France Kurdistan, Christian migrants, peace educators, international handicap, family planning…

(Editor’s note: Click here for the Peace Appeal issued by the Congress.)

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

In this period, when we see a certain decline in citizen commitments, in a serious and worrying international situation, everyone can only rejoice in this citizen mobilization for peace, which attests to the representativeness of Mouvement de la Paix. and the reality of citizen engagement and gathering around this movement. The Movement is recognized as one of the structuring elements of resistance to war, to all wars and a citizen force, capable of bringing together including through his role as one of the leaders of the national collective of marches for peace made up of 210 organizations in France.

We are pleased to send you below a first report produced by Ms. Manon Salé, journalist at CitéRadio Tours.

We had planned a press meeting on Friday evening around certain foreign participants. At the end of this press briefing, Manon Salé made a very interesting montage which gives a good overview of the work of the international forum and the general atmosphere of these 3 exceptional days..

This report contains interviews with the following people.

Ludo De Brabander, Pacifist activist from Belgium, returned to the issues of common security in Europe and in the world.

Shura Dumanic, one of the coordinators of the feminist peace movements in the former Yugoslavia, shared with us her experience of peace and war in Croatia.

Jim Anderson, animator of Peace Action, one of the largest pacifist networks in the USA, insisted on the importance of getting involved by carrying out concrete actions for peace.

Cherifa Kheddar, president of an association for the defense of victims of Islamist terrorism in Algeria (Djazairouna), emphasized the human dimension of conflicts and peace, which according to her passes through women.

Roland Nivet, national spokesperson for the Mouvement de la Paix, also spoke. In particular, he explained the importance of establishing an “economy of peace”, as opposed to the “economy of war”.

David Adams, former Director of the Culture of Peace at Unesco and animator of the Culture of Peace News Network, spoke about the place of the United States in international geopolitics and the European opportunities to set up a new order turned towards peace.

Finally, Michel Thouzeau, national secretary of the Mouvement de la Paix, offered different solutions to prepare for peace and returned to the word “utopian”, which is often applied to peace activists.

Once the conference was over, we went to the opening of the Art for Peace exhibition in the city hall for the speech of the Mayor of Tours Emmanuel Denis. He recalled the importance of art and the commitment of the city of Tours for peace.