Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

UK: Stop the War statement on the crisis over Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from Stop the War Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

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

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

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

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

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

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

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

We demand:

Immediate negotiations for de-escalation;

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

A ceasefire in Ukraine and the implementation of existing agreements;

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

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

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

(Continued from left column)

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

We say no to this insecurity!

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

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

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

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

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

AFCDRP is available on social media at twitter and facebook

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

United National AntiWar Coalition: No War with Russia

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

An email received at CPNN from the United National AntiWar Coalition

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


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

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

Click here to register

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

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

(Article continued from left column)

Speakers will include:

Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer, Black Alliance for Peace

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

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

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

Vladimir Kozin, Correspondent member, Russian Academy of Military Science

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

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

US Must Take Russia’s Security Concerns Seriously

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by by Natylie Baldwin in Antiwar.com

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

Illustration from the blog of Natylie Baldwin

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

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

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

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

(Article continued in the column on the right)

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

(Article continued from the column on the left)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Reuters (reprinted by permission)

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


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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

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

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

Text and illustration from the website of Peace Dividend

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

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

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


BROTHERHOOD II, courtesy of www.leclosier.com

The rationale for the proposal is simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humankind faces risks that can only be averted through cooperation.

Let us cooperate, instead of fighting among ourselves.

Question for this article:

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

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

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article from the European Union

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

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

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

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

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

Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention

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

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Can peace be guaranteed through nonviolent means?

(continued from left column)

Global, trans-regional and emerging threats

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

Annual Action Programme for 2021

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

For more information

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

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

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

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

EEAS Security, Defence & Crisis Response

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An open letter from Mayors for Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

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

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

(Continued from left column)

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

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

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

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

December 13, 2021, Mayors for Peace

President Mayor of Hiroshima, Japan

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

United Nations General Assembly Adopts Annual Culture of Peace Resolution

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

Including sections on culture of peace from UN press reports of December 6 and December 9.

The annual culture of peace resolution, “Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace”, was adopted on December 9 by the UN General Assembly. As of December 22, the adopted resolution was put here on the UN website.

There was only one substantive change in the operative paragraphs compared to last year’s resolution. It was the following: 11. Emphasizes the critical importance of an inclusive, resilient and sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and in this regard calls upon States to promote the values of culture of peace, inter alia, in countering rising inequalities, discrimination, exclusion, hate crimes and violence;

The United Staters was not among the final 109 co-sponsors of this resolution, and while the European Union did not sponsor as a whole, this year there were several EU members that co-sponsored, including Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, and Spain.

Here is the verbatim record of the culture of peace debate on December 6

Culture of Peace

The Assembly then turned to the Secretary‑General’s report titled “Promotion of a culture of peace and interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace” (document A/76/357) and two related draft resolutions.

RABAB FATIMA (Bangladesh), introducing the draft resolution titled “Follow‑up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace” (document A/76/L.19), said the text’s adoption this year assumes greater relevance and urgency as the world continues to grapple with the COVID‑19 pandemic.  In addition to technical updates, three new paragraphs — preambular paragraphs 13 and 31 and operative paragraph 11 — are included to reflect the realities of the pandemic and other important developments.  The new operative paragraph 11 calls upon States to promote the values of a culture of peace for an inclusive, resilient and sustainable recovery from the COVID‑19 pandemic.

By its terms, the Assembly encouraged Member States, United Nations entities, regional and subregional organizations to consider instituting mechanisms involving youth in promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and intercultural and interreligious dialogue and developing an understanding of respect for human dignity, pluralism and diversity that could discourage their participation in acts of terrorism, violent extremism, xenophobia and discrimination.

It also urged the authorities to provide age‑appropriate education in children’s schools that builds on a culture of peace and non‑violence, including lessons in mutual understanding, respect, tolerance, active and global citizenship, and human rights.

ENRIQUE AUSTRIA MANALO (Philippines) introduced the second draft resolution titled “Promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace” (document A/76/L.21).  He joined the representative of Pakistan in pointing out the text’s two core objectives: to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue in achieving peace and stability and the full realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and to strengthen mechanisms and action for the promotion of a genuine, constructive dialogue across cultural and religious divides.  He called on States to further those aims by maintaining an open, inclusive and transparent approach throughout the negotiations process.

Noting a growing trend of xenophobia and religious intolerance, underpinned by the politics of identity, as well as the emergence of extremist ideologies in different parts of the world, especially under a continuing pandemic context, he underlined the important role of UNESCO and the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations in promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue at the national, regional and international levels, and requested all States to adopt the draft resolution by consensus.

By the text, the Assembly called on Member States, which have the primary responsibility to counter discrimination and hate speech, and all relevant actors, including political and religious leaders, to promote inclusion and unity in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic and to combat racism, xenophobia, hate speech, violence, and discrimination.

It further invited Member States to promote reconciliation to help ensure durable peace, and sustained development, including by working with faith leaders and communities as well as through reconciliatory measures, acts of service and by encouraging forgiveness and compassion among individuals.  And it invited Member States to disseminate values of religious tolerance and interreligious dialogue through educational programmes.

NOOR QAMAR SULAIMAN (Brunei Darussalam), speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), highlighted that the region is one of the most diverse in the world, with more than 640 million people representing different political, economic, ethnicities and social systems.  Guided by the ASEAN Charter, the Association has continued to promote a culture of peace, fostering a caring, cohesive and equitable community.  It has initiated several frameworks to promote cooperation and confidence‑building, she said, citing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon‑Free Zone and other ASEAN‑led mechanisms.  In 2017, ASEAN leaders adopted the Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society, promoting six key priorities.

In March, the fourth meeting of the ASEAN Working Group on Culture of Prevention addressed post‑pandemic recovery efforts, and challenges that hinder peace, security and sustainable developments in the region, she said.  She further noted the adoption of the ASEAN Leaders’ Declaration on Upholding Multilateralism, upholding and promoting multilateral cooperation, anchored in international law.  ASEAN is committed to the Plan of Action to implement the Joint Declaration on Comprehensive Partnership between ASEAN and the United Nations for 2021-2025, to continue upholding multilateralism and cooperation in evolving regional architecture, as well as promoting sustainable and inclusive peace and stability in the region and beyond.  Emphasizing the invaluable role of the Alliance of Civilizations in advancing intercultural and interreligious dialogue, understanding and respect among civilizations, cultures and religions, she recognized its work in coordinating the United Nations Plan of Action to Safeguard Religious Sites.  ASEAN will continue to support the Security Council’s women, peace and security agenda, as well as its youth, peace and security agenda.

THILMEEZA HUSSAIN (Maldives) said peace is not a goal achievable on its own, but one that is built on such foundations as a healthy environment and adequate health care and housing.  At the multilateral level, States must use such foundational institutions as the United Nations to resolve differences before they become disputes.  Citing a range of challenges, she said the pandemic has laid bare the international financial system’s inadequacies, and support must reach those most in need to ensure the maintenance of a culture of peace.  Climate change poses a significant threat to small island developing States, undermining their efforts to realize the Sustainable Development Goals.  More must be done urgently in this regard.  The Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace rightly identifies Governments, civil society, media and individuals as key actors for their effective implementation.  In this vein, peace requires inclusive and thoughtful engagement between all stakeholders, and only through open dialogue can they build a shared purpose and understanding.

EGRISELDA ARACELY GONZÁLEZ LÓPEZ (El Salvador) expressed concern about the pandemic’s effect on realization of the Sustainable Development Goals and human rights, stressing that  greater solidarity is the only way to recover from the crisis, and supporting the call of the World Health Organization (WHO) for better access to vaccines, which would prevent the resurgence of COVID‑19 variants.  She also noted the importance of aid to bridge the digital divide, with the support of the United Nations, to ensure equitable access to inclusive education.  She also described national policies to support early childhood education to promote a culture of peace and build resilience.

SAMUEL MONCADA (Venezuela) stated that his country has faced difficulties in recent years as a result of a campaign of aggression, based on the illegal application of unilateral coercive measures that have threatened national peace and stability. These criminal actions, which have intensified amid the worst pandemic humanity has faced in the last 100 years, are part of a policy of calculated cruelty, he said.  To consciously deprive an entire nation of its means of subsistence is an attack against peace and a crime against humanity.  He reaffirmed his support for the implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the continuity of its annual resolution before the Assembly.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), noting that the COVID‑19 pandemic demonstrated the importance of promoting a culture of peace to overcome gaps in society, welcomed the Secretary‑General’s efforts to make the United Nations the centre of multilateral efforts to fight the pandemic.  Religious leaders have an important role to play in overcoming the challenges posed by COVID-19, he said, spotlighting the Secretary‑General’s organization of a meeting of senior religious leaders in May 2020 to address the pandemic.  Morocco supports United Nations efforts to promote peace between religions and cultures; it works on the national level towards this end and in the fight against all forms of xenophobia, discrimination, and hatred.  A melting pot of different cultures, Morocco is proud to have an ancestral tradition of tolerance and peaceful coexistence.  Respect for cultural and religious diversity is part of the country’s collective consciousness.  He also stressed the importance of education, which is a key to ensuring the development of a culture of peace and to countering discrimination, hatred and extremism.

SHEIKH GHAZALI (Malaysia), stressing that exclusion and inequality breed instability, consume peace and disrupt sustainable development, noted that his country recently introduced the concept of Keluarga Malaysia or “Malaysian Family” to further strengthen the ethos of togetherness and inclusivity.  Malaysia takes an affirmative and positive approach to peace, he said, stressing that peace lies with mutual understanding, respect and tolerance among religions, cultures and peoples.  Building a culture of peace is premised on equality and inclusivity such as in ensuring that people have access to food, shelter, education and decent work, he emphasized, calling on States to ensure that the right to development is pursued and realized at the national, regional and global levels.  Defamation of religion constitutes a derogation of the right to one’s own beliefs and it is not mutually exclusive with freedom of speech and opinion, he said, underscoring that both rights must be promoted and respected in a compatible, balanced manner.

MARITZA CHAN VALVERDE (Costa Rica) said that the culture of peace teaches that “conflicts are resolved at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield”.  Peace is always an unfinished task — “a horizon in motion” — and cannot by imposed by the barrel of a gun.  Pointing out that global military spending increased by $2 trillion in 2020, she said that, as more weapons are produced, more will escape the international community’s best efforts to manage and control them.  If a fraction of military expenditure was instead used to combat the COVID‑19 pandemic, tackle the climate crisis or bolster implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, the current generation could take pride in these achievements.  Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and promises made concerning the Goals continue to fall short.  Against that backdrop, she called on all States to reduce military spending and to consider how gender norms, including “militarized masculinity”, affect conflict and armed violence.  Peace is not sustainable if it is not inclusive, and women and girls are underrepresented both in the pandemic response and in other forums that make decisions pertaining to peace and security.

MOHAMED AL HASSAN (Oman), highlighting the urgent need for renewed cooperation to counter hate speech, Islamophobia, contempt of religion, misinformation, and extremist narratives, said that dialogue and cooperation are tools that build bridges for peace and reconciliation.  With peace, dialogue and understanding, people can work together to tackle climate change, the digital gap and COVID‑19.  Peace is a key component in Omar’s foreign policy, he said, adding that his country seeks to achieve peace in its relations with all countries.  Peace cannot be achieved with words, but with actions and conduct in accordance with international values principles and norms consistent with the United Nations Charter.

MOHAMMAD AAMIR KHAN (Pakistan) said that while globalization has brought people closer, it has also spawned divisions and friction among and within societies.  Due to a lack of understanding, extremist and terrorist groups have exploited the gap in understanding and tolerance to propagate such divisions.  Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen mechanisms that promote dialogue and understanding.  Noting the increase in Islamophobia in many parts of the world, he stressed that Islam is a religion of peace and should not be judged by the acts of extremists who exist in all societies.  Thus, the international community must effectively address unresolved disputes and conflicts, lack of inclusive socioeconomic development, and anti-migrant rhetoric.  To Pakistan, respecting and promoting freedom of religion and belief is not only a duty to its citizens, but also a way of life.  His country is building a welfare State that looks after its poor and needy and aims to reduce inequality by investing in human development.  It also seeks to build relations with its neighbours and others in the international community, he said, noting the opening of the Kartarpur corridor between India and Pakistan in 2019.

SHEIKHA ALMAHA MUBARAK F. J. AL-THANI (Qatar) said that her country has established institutions for the promotion of a culture of peace and intercultural and interreligious dialogues such as the Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue and the Arab Cultural House in Berlin.  Given the importance of education in enhancing a culture of peace, Qatar has placed education as a top priority in all its relief and development programmes.  Noting the important role of youth in achieving peace and sustainability, she said Qatar will host in January 2022 the International Conference on Comprehensive Peace Paths for Youth, to be held virtually due to COVID‑19.  As well, Qatar will host FIFA [World Cup of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association] in 2022, the first time it will be held in the Middle East and the Arab region.

ANDRÉS EFREN MONTALVO SOSA (Ecuador) said dialogue is the best instrument for prevention of violence and conflict.  Noting the negative impact of COVID‑19 on different spheres of society, he stressed the need for access to free, reliable multilingual and science-based information to stop the virus’ spread.  While a culture of peace is entrenched in Ecuador’s laws, the threat of violence from transnational organized crime could undermine the country’s democratic institutions.  Noting that the 2030 Agenda stresses the promotion of a culture of peace, he stressed the need to employ COVID‑19 recovery strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(continued from left column)

SHAUN LIM (Singapore), associating himself with ASEAN, noted Singapore is a diverse society of 5.7 million people — Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians and others — living together on an island smaller than New York City, representing many of the world’s great religions.  In a 2019 Gallup poll, 95 per cent of respondents said the country was “a good place to live” for racial and ethnic minorities.  However, he noted that the country’s current harmony is built on painful lessons drawn from racial riots during the early years of independence and remains a work in progress.  The Declaration on a Culture of Peace affirms the key roles of civil society and religious bodies in developing such a culture, he said, with ground-up organizations and people of faith playing the largest role in building mutual understanding and trust.  As such, his Government works closely with the Inter-Religious Organization, led by a council of 31 leaders of 10 different faiths, building networks among them, countering religious extremism and radicalization, and promoting local and international interfaith dialogue.

FAISAL GH A. T. M. ALENEZI (Kuwait) said COVID‑19 has set back communication and dialogue between peoples, resulting in divisions.  Instead of ideas coming together, this also risks increasing intolerance and discrimination on racial and ethnic grounds.  In that regard, the international community must redouble its efforts to work together against the crisis.  Noting that Kuwait has made peace a State objective, he said dialogue, acceptance of others, tolerance are principles and values of Kuwaiti society and have been for centuries.  In the modern age, Kuwait’s Constitution has ensured freedom of expression and religious practices.  In its efforts to reinforce peace and tolerance, Kuwait created a high-level committee to strengthen tolerance and counter extremist actions and ideas.  It also participates in regional and international efforts to strengthen a culture of peace and dialogue.

PEDRO LUIS PEDROSO CUESTA (Cuba) said that while the Assembly meets to discuss peace, the use of force in international relations continues.  At same time, unilateral measures prevail even amid the most challenging conditions imposed by COVID‑19.  The implementation of unilateral measures impedes the exercise of the right to development of countries.  There can be no peace without inclusive social and economic development and as long as inequalities arise from an unjust economic order.  Moreover, there can be no peace if hate speech, racism, xenophobia and intolerance continue to be encouraged.  Haiti is committed to a culture of peace and to the promotion of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace.  He said the impacts of the most protracted economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed against any country have intensified during the pandemic.  As a country of peace, he said Cuba will not yield to attempts to sow confusion or discredit his country.

ASHISH SHARMA (India) said every one of the world’s major religions has a home in India, noting that his country has regularly provided refuge to those who have been persecuted in foreign lands and allowed them to thrive.  Noting disconcerting trends and instances of acts of violence based on religion or belief, in particular violence against the Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh communities, he urged the United Nations and Member States to counter such violence immediately.  He called for strengthened international efforts to foster and promote a culture of peace.  Noting that intolerance, violence and hatred have almost become the norm, he expressed concern about the increase in resources made available to groups who promote such acts.  Reiterating the call to fight against violence and discrimination, he said the international community must together build a culture of peace rather than fail separately.

Mr. BONCOEUR (Haiti), noting that the culture of peace, due to its complexity, requires much more commitment and greater involvement of stakeholders, encouraged Member States, United Nations entities, regional organizations and stakeholders to do more to promote peacebuilding and sustain peace.  Education and dialogue are the most effective ways to develop a sense of universal values required for coexistence and lasting peace.  In the context of growing insecurity, violence, racism, inequality and hate speech, global solidarity is becoming more necessary than ever.  In this regard, he called for support for all initiatives to promote a culture of peace and to join the efforts of the United Nations to promote dialogue, understanding and cooperation among religions and cultures in the service of peace.  Recalling the late Pope Paul VI and his speech before the United Nations on 4 October 1965, he reminded the Assembly of the important mission of the United Nations to teach peace.  “Let us make sure that we live up to this great and noble task,” he said.

Here is the verbatim record of the culture of peace debate on December 9.

Culture of Peace

The Assembly began the meeting by resuming its debate on the culture of peace and considering two draft resolutions on this agenda item.  (For background, please see Press Release GA/12392  of 6 December).

MOHAMED OMAR ELFAROUK HASSAN MOHAMED (Egypt) said that the scale of the international transformation could have been an opportunity to create a culture of peace, which should promote living together and tolerance, but technology has contributed to an increase in violence, aggravated by the pandemic, with serious consequences.  Optimism about vaccines and the effectiveness of the COVAX facility has dissipated in the face of inequalities in vaccine access.  He encouraged intellectuals and the media to play their role in fighting against hatred, ignorance and exclusion and in opposing extremism.  Deploring that social networks participate in the recruitment of terrorists using false religious pretexts, he recalled Egypt’s strong commitment to the culture of peace, both at the regional level and in its work with the United Nations.

WAEL AL KHALIL (Syria) said that a culture of peace cannot be maintained without respect for international law.  However, the major challenge to the implementation of a culture of peace is that some States attempt to dominate the Organization by putting its mechanisms at the service of their own interests while hiding practices that ignore the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.  Collective will is needed to establish dialogue and cooperative action and put an end to hegemonic policies.  The international community must move from words to deeds, he said, emphasizing the need to combat the recent proliferation of extremist policies, the undermining of religions, xenophobia and ignoring the plight of refugees and migrants.

KHAULA ALI KHAMIS OBAID ALSHAMSI (United Arab Emirates), stressing that a culture of peace is essential for combating violence and conflict, noted that the COVID‑19 pandemic has been a test for the international community, regardless of borders.  Highlighting her country’s fiftieth anniversary, she reaffirmed its commitment to be a haven of tolerance and coexistence, as well as a beacon of well-being and peace.  Drawing attention to the noble values held in common by the entire world and advocated by all religions over the centuries, she said the Emirates involves all parts of society, notably the most vulnerable, in all aspects of life at the national, regional and international levels.  Also pointing to the “Global Alliance for Tolerance” initiative, launched by her country in the context of its 2020 Expo, she recalled the Assembly resolution on the International Day of Human Fraternity, which was sponsored by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

ZAKIA IGHIL (Algeria) said global solidarity and multilateral cooperation have emerged as crucial components of moving forward in the COVID‑19 recovery.  However, while the recovery efforts from the pandemic are ongoing, the unequal access to the vaccines undermines the efforts to end the pandemic globally.  Moreover, inequality, poverty, hunger and unemployment are widening.  Racism, hate speech and extremism are also on the rise.  Concrete actions are needed to realize the culture of peace by addressing the root causes of conflicts, including through decolonialization, combating violent extremism, eradicating poverty and fostering the rule of law, she asserted.  On promoting dialogue, Algeria has been a mediator for the conflict in Mali, leading to the signing of the peace agreement and national reconciliation in that country.  Algeria has also worked to launch and promote the inter‑Libyan dialogue, with a view toward a peaceful settlement of disputes in the region, she underscored.

JUAN MARCELO ZAMBRANA TORRELIO (Bolivia) said the Organization has a founding mandate to bring about a culture of peace.  This mandate is now linked to other concepts such as sustainable development and greater equality between women and men.  One of the goals of “Transforming our world:  the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is to bring about a peaceful society without violence.  The world has been artificially divided and conflict and intolerance are worsening.  He expressed concern about increasing tensions due to the COVID‑19 pandemic and climate change crises, which have had a major humanitarian cost.  Bolivia has opted for a culture of peace and a culture of dialogue and diplomacy between nations to bring about peace.  Peace can be brought about if there is equality for everyone.  Yet intolerance has worsened in the pandemic era, he said, stressing the need for equal, universal access to vaccines.  The international community must keep working together to foster a revitalized and inclusive multilateralism.

Speaking in explanation of position before the vote, the representative of Armenia said that the draft resolution concerning promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue has many valuable provisions, but preambular paragraph 35 refers to an event held in a Member State with a long‑standing record of gross violations of human rights.  Noting that in 2020, amid an unprecedented global pandemic, Azerbaijan launched an aggressive war, that was accompanied by intentional destruction and desecration of the Armenian Christian heritage, he added that when relevant United Nations departments prepare reports on promotion of a culture of peace, it is imperative they pay attention to the context, in  which international events are being organized, and their real intent, before referring to such events as “key global platform for promoting intercultural dialogue”.  Due regard should also be given to the record of the host country, he said, requesting a vote on the draft resolution.

The Assembly then adopted a resolution titled “Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace” (document A/76/L.19) without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly encouraged Member States, United Nations entities, regional and subregional organizations to consider instituting mechanisms to involve youth in the promotion of a culture of peace, tolerance and intercultural and interreligious dialogue, and to develop an understanding of respect for human dignity, pluralism and diversity, including through education programmes, that could discourage their participation in acts of terrorism, violent extremism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination.

It also urged the relevant authorities to provide age-appropriate education in children’s schools that builds a culture of peace and non-violence, including lessons in mutual understanding, respect, tolerance, active and global citizenship and human rights.  The Secretary-General was asked to submit to the General Assembly at its seventy-seventh session a report on actions taken by Member States to implement the resolution and on heightened activities by the Organization and its affiliated agencies to implement the Programme of Action and to promote a culture of peace and non-violence.

Next, the Assembly adopted a resolution titled “Promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace” (document A/76/L.21), by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions (Armenia, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Norway, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States).

By its terms, the Assembly called upon Member States, which have the primary responsibility to counter discrimination and hate speech, and all relevant actors, including political and religious leaders, to promote inclusion and unity in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic and to combat racism, xenophobia, hate speech, violence and discrimination.  It invited Member States to further promote reconciliation to help to ensure durable peace and sustained development, including by working with faith leaders and communities and through reconciliatory measures and acts of service, and by encouraging forgiveness and compassion among individuals.  It also invited Member States to disseminate values of religious tolerance and interreligious dialogue through educational programmes.

In an explanation of position after the vote, the representative of Slovenia speaking on behalf of the European Union,, expressed regret that the resolution duplicates and distorts the provisions of two other resolutions, one pertaining to freedom of religion and belief, and the other to combating discrimination.  As such, he said there is no need for the current resolution to address and redefine the same issues.  His delegation also regrets the lack of stronger affirmation of the positive intercultural and interrelational dialogue contained in the text, he said.  Furthermore, throughout negotiations, the European Union submitted proposals to enhance language regarding safeguards against human rights.  While his delegation believes the balance of the text could have been improved further, he welcomed the decision to biannualize the resolution.:

Also speaking in explanation of position after adoption, the representative of the United States reaffirmed her country’s commitment to rejecting violence as well as interreligious and intercultural dialogue.  Clarifying her country’s position on the text concerning follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, she voiced strong reservations about paragraph 15 where the text suggests that protections for freedoms of expression and religion or belief are at odds with one another.  “Protecting the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression promotes mutual respect and pluralism,” she said.

The representative of Ukraine acknowledged the importance of interreligious and intercultural dialogue for the purposes of peace and supported all steps to promote cultural diversity and religious pluralism.  Ukraine does not support the inclusion of the reference to the intentions of the Inter‑Parliamentary Union, he said.  Regrettably, the Russian Federation attempts to make all international events it hosts serve the goal of whitewashing its aggressive policies against sovereign States and repressive practices in the occupied areas, he asserted.  Drawing attention to the ongoing pressure put on religious communities in the temporary occupied autonomous Republic of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, Lugansk and Donetsk territories of Ukraine, he condemned the human rights violations perpetrated by the Russian Federation.

The representative of Argentina said he voted in favour of the resolution because dialogue can help contribute to peace.  Argentina has the broadest respect for religious freedom and promotes an understanding of a wide range of beliefs and cultures.  His Government believes in combating all forms of discrimination.  International human rights laws compel States to adopt moderate approaches.  Argentina recognizes that all people have a right to religious freedom and the freedoms of expression and assembly, as long as any actions do not incite violence.  Yet the draft resolution places an unnecessary emphasis on limiting the right to the freedom of expression, he said.

The representative of Azerbaijan noted that the resolution welcomes the declaration of the Seventh Global Forum of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations held in Baku.  He denounced the irrelevant comments of Armenia as counterproductive to the objectives of this text.  He said that he regretted that Armenia’s hostile position had prevented the General Assembly from adopting this text by consensus.

(A series of rebuttals by Azerbaijan and Armenia is omitted here but is available on the full report from the UN Press.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,