Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Increase in arms transfers driven by demand in the Middle East and Asia, says SIPRI

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Annual report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

The volume of international transfers of major weapons has grown continuously since 2004 and increased by 8.4 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Notably, transfers of major weapons in 2012–16 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the cold war.


(click on the image to enlarge)

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2007–11 and 2012–16, while there was a decrease in the flow to Europe, the Americas and Africa. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany—together accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports.

Asia: major increases for some states

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 7.7 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16 and accounted for 43 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2012–16, accounting for 13 per cent of the global total. Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 it increased its arms imports by 43 per cent. In 2012–16 India’s imports were far greater than those of its regional rivals China and Pakistan.

Imports by countries in South East Asia increased 6.2 per cent from 2007–11 to 2012–16. Viet Nam made a particularly large jump from being the 29th largest importer in 2007–11 to the 10th largest in 2012–16, with arms imports increasing by 202 per cent.

‘With no regional arms control instruments in place, states in Asia continue to expand their arsenals’, said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While China is increasingly able to substitute arms imports with indigenous products, India remains dependent on weapons technology from many willing suppliers, including Russia, the USA, European states, Israel and South Korea’.

Middle East: arms imports almost double

Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 arms imports by states in the Middle East rose by 86 per cent and accounted for 29 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer in 2012-16, with an increase of 212 per cent compared with 2007–11. Arms imports by Qatar went up by 245 per cent. Although at lower rates, the majority of other states in the region also increased arms imports. ‘Over the past five years, most states in the Middle East have turned primarily to the USA and Europe in their accelerated pursuit of advanced military capabilities’, said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Despite low oil prices, countries in the region continued to order more weapons in 2016, perceiving them as crucial tools for dealing with conflicts and regional tensions.’

(Article continued on the right column)

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

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Arms exporters: the USA accounts for one-third of total

With a one-third share of global arms exports, the USA was the top arms exporter in 2012– 16. Its arms exports increased by 21 per cent compared with 2007–11. Almost half of its arms exports went to the Middle East.

‘The USA supplies major arms to at least 100 countries around the world—significantly more than any other supplier state’, said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Both advanced strike aircraft with cruise missiles and other precision-guided munitions and the latest generation air and missile defence systems account for a significant share of US arms exports.’

Russia accounted for a 23 per cent share of global exports in the period 2012–16. 70 per cent of its arms exports went to four countries: India, Viet Nam, China and Algeria.

China’s share of global arms exports rose from 3.8 to 6.2 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. It is now firmly a top-tier supplier, like France and Germany which accounted for 6 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. The ongoing lower rate of French arms export deliveries may end soon because of a series of major contracts signed in the past five years. Despite a spike in arms exports in 2016, German arms exports—counted over a five-year period—decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16.

Other notable developments

Algeria was the largest arms importer in Africa with 46 per cent of all imports to the region.

The largest importers in sub-Saharan Africa—Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia—are all in conflict zones.

Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 18 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. However, changes in import volumes varied considerably. Colombia’s arms imports decreased by 19 per cent, while Mexico’s arms imports grew by 184 per cent in 2012–16 compared with 2007–11.

Imports by states in Europe significantly decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. Initial deliveries to Europe of advanced combat aircraft as part of major contracts started in 2012–16 and further deliveries will drive import volumes up in the coming years.

Imports by Azerbaijan were 20 times higher than those of Armenia in 2012–16.

For editors

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all international transfers of major weapons (including sales, gifts and production licences) to states, international organizations and armed non-state groups from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year, 2016. SIPRI data reflects the volume of deliveries of arms, not the financial value of the deals. As the volume of deliveries can fluctuate significantly year-onyear, SIPRI presents data for 5-year periods, giving a more stable measure of trends.

[Editor’s note: With regard to the financial value of arms transfers, SIPRi has published the following : “by adding together the data that states have made available on the financial value of their arms exports as well as estimates for those providing data on agreements or licences, it is possible to estimate that that the total value of the global arms trade in 2014 was at least $94.5 billion.* However, the actual figure is likely to be higher.”]

For information or interview requests contact Stephanie Blenckner (blenckner@sipri.org, +46 8 655 97 47) or Harri Thomas (harri.thomas@sipri.org, +46 70 972 39 50).

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

10th anniversary of the Oslo Process: The Historic start to the cluster bomb ban

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Cluster Munition Coalition

23rd February marks the 10th anniversary of the Oslo Process. Ten years ago today the Oslo Process began when 46 states took an extraordinary step by making a historic declaration to outlaw cluster munitions at a conference hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo in February 2007.


The Oslo Process culminated with the signing of the Convention on Cluster Munitions within less than two years. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store with Soraj Ghulam Habib from Afghanistan. © Federico Visi

With persistent and concerted efforts by governments in close partnerships with the Cluster Munition Coalition, International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations agencies, the Oslo Conference was followed by ten regional meetings hosted by different countries, including by some of the most affected such as Lao PDR and Lebanon, to mobilize international support for a total ban on cluster munitions. In less than two years, the ambitious goal of the Oslo Declaration was achieved, when 94 states signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions during the first week of December 2008 in Oslo.

We asked Ambassador Steffen Kongstad of Norway, who played a crucial role during the Oslo Process, what the launch of the process meant to him. Ambassador Kongstad, currently Norway’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the OSCE, said: “The launch of the Oslo Process and the successful conclusion of the Convention on Cluster Munitions that followed demonstrated what can be achieved when affected countries, other interested countries and competent civil society organisations work together based on facts and humanitarian concerns and principles. The CCM has saved countless lives and limbs and prevented unacceptable human suffering. That was exactly the purpose and objective of this process.”

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can cluster bombs be abolished?

(Article continued from left column)

We asked Mr. Hrvoje Debač, Director at Office for Mine Action of the Republic of Croatia, what the Oslo Process and the Convention on Cluster Munitions mean to him.

Cluster munitions were known to be indiscriminate and for having caused disproportionate civilian casualties for decades before the start of the Oslo Process. The use of cluster munitions by the United States in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and in Iraq in 2003 and the massive use of cluster munitions in Southern Lebanon by Israel and Hezbullah (a non-state armed group) in 2006, provided indisputable evidence of the indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions and caused global outrage. Cluster Munition Coalition campaigners, together a core group of states and other actors worked tirelessly to bring the devastation caused by cluster munitions to the attention of the international community and to urge the immediate ban of the weapons.

What the international community, and most importantly affected countries, have achieved through the Convention on Cluster Munitions is remarkable. To date, 119 nations have joined the convention. According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, 29 States Parties have destroyed nearly 1.4 million stockpiled cluster munitions containing 172.9 million submunitions. Seventeen States Parties and one non-signatory have ceased the production of cluster munitions. Last year, the United States suspended its transfers of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia and one of the world´s largest arms producers, Textron, announced plans to stop producing cluster munitions. The Saudi-led coalition ended its use of UK-made cluster bombs in Yemen.

Listen to this short interview with Ms. Habbouba Aoun, head of the Landmines Resource Center for Lebanon, a member of the Cluster Munition Coalition in Beirut. Ms. Aoun actively participated in the Oslo Process and she continues to advocate for a cluster munition-free world.

We congratulate governments and other actors for their efforts to eradicate cluster bombs. We also demand that the international community remains fully committed until all countries join the convention, until no one else gets killed or maimed by cluster bombs, until the Saudi-led coalition, Syria, Russia and any other actor that uses cluster munitions stops doing so, until all victims receive sufficient assistance, until all states destroy their stockpiles of the weapon, and until the world is free from the plague of cluster munitions.

[Editor’s note: As of June 2018, Among the major powers, the United States, Russia and China have not yet signed the convention.]

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Jordan: RC societies meeting kicks off Tuesday to promote culture of peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Petra, Jordan News Agency

The meeting of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region will convene Tuesday [Jan. 24] in Amman under the theme” together for Humanity.”

A statement by Jordan’s Red Crescent Monday said the three-day meeting will tackle a scope of tops including the emergency response to the challenges in Mena region, the importance of promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and non-violence, as well as issues of displacement and migration in the region.

Participants of the ninth edition of the meeting, which will be held under the auspices of Senate President Faisal Fayez, will also focus on issues of reducing urban risks, enhancing humanitarian response in cities and protecting volunteer health and safety.

Some 17 national societies from Mena region are participating in the conference, which is co-organized with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in addition to a number of observers that represent global and regional humanitarian societies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Arab Red Crescent and Red Cross Organization (ARCO).

Question related to this article:
DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

Middle East Peace Conference Joint Declaration

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

Conference Declaration as published by France Diplomatie

I) Following the Ministerial meeting held in Paris on 3 June 2016, the Participants met in Paris on 15 January 2017 to reaffirm their support for a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They reaffirmed that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.


(Click on photo to enlarge)

* They emphasized the importance for the parties to restate their commitment to this solution, to take urgent steps in order to reverse the current negative trends on the ground, including continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, and to start meaningful direct negotiations.

* They reiterated that a negotiated two-state solution should meet the legitimate aspirations of both sides, including the Palestinians’ right to statehood and sovereignty, fully end the occupation that began in 1967, satisfy Israel’s security needs and resolve all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and also recalled relevant Security Council resolutions.

* They underscored the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.

* They welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which clearly condemned settlement activity, incitement and all acts of violence and terror, and called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016 ; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016.

* They noted the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation.

* They emphasized the importance for Israelis and Palestinians to comply with international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for a version in French)

Question related to this article:

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(continued from left column)

II) The Participants highlighted the potential for security, stability and prosperity for both parties that could result from a peace agreement. They expressed their readiness to exert necessary efforts toward the achievement of the two-state solution and to contribute substantially to arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a negotiated peace agreement, in particular in the areas of political and economic incentives, the consolidation of Palestinian state capacities, and civil society dialogue. Those could include, inter alia :

* a European special privileged partnership ; other political and economic incentives and increased private sector involvement ; support to further efforts by the parties to improve economic cooperation ; continued financial support to the Palestinian authority in building the infrastructure for a viable Palestinian economy ;*

* supporting and strengthening Palestinian steps to exercise their responsibilities of statehood through consolidating their institutions and institutional capacities, including for service delivery ;*

* convening Israeli and Palestinian civil society fora, in order to enhance dialogue between the parties, rekindle the public debate and strengthen the role of civil society on both sides.*

III) Looking ahead, the Participants :*

* call upon both sides to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution, thus disassociating themselves from voices that reject this solution ;*

* call on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution and refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final status issues, including, inter alia, on Jerusalem, borders, security, refugees and which they will not recognize ;*

* welcome the prospect of closer cooperation between the Quartet and Arab League members and other relevant actors to further the objectives of this Declaration.*

As follow-up to the Conference, interested Participants, expressing their readiness to review progress, resolved to meet again before the end of the year in order to support both sides in advancing the two-state solution through negotiations.*

France will inform the parties about the international community’s collective support and concrete contribution to the two-State solution contained in this joint declaration.*

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

UN Security Council underlines need to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from The UN News Centre

Expressing concern over the threat of terrorism and the risk that non-State actors may acquire or use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council today [15 December 2016] called on all countries to establish national controls to prevent proliferation of such weapons as well as their means of delivery.

In a resolution adopted today, the 15-member Council also reiterated the need to continue to strengthen ongoing cooperation among various intergovernmental bodies and entities concerning terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), as well as counter-terrorism, through enhanced information sharing, coordination and technical assistance.

The Council further called on all UN Member States to ensure the full implementation of its resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It also called for strengthening the UN Trust Fund for Global and Regional Disarmament Activities through additional funding so that it is able to better assist countries in implementing their obligations under resolution 1540. . . .

STATEMENT BY JAN ELIASSON

Prior to today’s adoption of resolution by the Council, Deputy-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson issued the following statement:

Mr. President of the Security Council, Mr. Minister, I am extremely grateful for your generous and warm words. I thank the Security Council and the Spanish Presidency for arranging today’s debate. I am honoured to be here before you today in what is my final appearance at the Security Council. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of your for your friendship and cooperation over the past almost five years. I have highly treasured our dialogue and many professional and personal exchanges.

I also want to thank the Resolution 1540 Committee and its Panel of Experts, under the leadership of Ambassador Roman Oyarzun, for their work on the important subject under consideration today.

Preventing non-state actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction is among the most important responsibilities of the international community.

The Nuclear Security Summits, the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the close engagement by this Council on allegations of chemical weapon use have all played an important role in keeping us safe.

The Secretariat has also played its part.

In 2012, the Secretary-General convened a high-level meeting to strengthen legal frameworks against nuclear terrorism.

And after the accident at Fukushima, he chaired a high-level event to emphasize the connection between nuclear safety and security.

In 2013, he launched the investigation into the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Yet in our rapidly evolving global security environment, gaps will continue to open.

We have seen the rise of vicious non-state groups with no regard for human life. They actively seek weapons of mass destruction I am sure. And these weapons are increasingly accessible.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for an article in french on this subject)

Question related to this article:

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

(Continued from left column)

We have seen this in the use of chemical weapons by Da’esh in Syria and Iraq.

There are legitimate concerns about the security of large stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile material outside international regulation.

Scientific advances have lowered barriers to the production of biological weapons. And emerging technologies, such as 3D printing and unmanned aerial vehicles, are adding to threats of an attack using a WMD.

We must also beware of the growing nexus between WMDs, terrorism and cyber security.

Malicious actions in cyberspace have real world consequences.

Non-state actors already have the capacity to abuse cyber technologies to create mass disruption.

The nightmare scenario of a hack on a nuclear power plant causing uncontrolled release of ionizing radiation is growing.

To stay ahead of this technological curve, the international community needs robust defences that are nimble and flexible.

Preventing a WMD attack by a non-state actor will be a long-term challenge that requires long-term responses.

Tools such as Resolution 1540 need to be fit for purpose.

I am pleased to see the Comprehensive Review, which has called for greater efforts to build the capacity of all States.

After all, this is a threat to our collective security.

We all need to boost our ability to respond.

A biological attack would be a public health disaster.

Yet there is no multilateral institutional response capability.

The Council also has a role to play in holding those that use chemical or other inhumane weapons accountable.

There can be no impunity.

This is a complex web of global threats and risks that requires a sophisticated global response.

We must take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen our collective defences.

In this regard, the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference was in many ways disappointing.

I count on all States to work together to prevent potential disasters.

And I count on this Council to lead.

In closing, let me emphasize that it is not simply a case of letting these weapons fall into the wrong hands.

There are no right hands for wrong weapons.

And weapons of mass destruction are simply wrong.

There is only one sure way to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction – that is their complete elimination.

We live in a world that is over armed.

A world where peace is under-funded.

I urge on behalf of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon all States to fulfil their commitment to building a world free of all weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you Mr. President.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Bid Adieu To Voice Of International Law Jurist C.G Weeramantry…

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Live Law by Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Professor, Geeta Law Institute, Kurushetra University.

International Jurist and renowned Scholar from third World Mr. C.G Weeramantry, former Vice-President of International Court of Justice and former judge of Srilanka Supreme court, passed away on 5 Jan 2017, leaving behind the legacy of his intellectual work in international law which will remain forever for world peace, humanity and environment.. His immense contribution to international law requires no introduction. In capacity as ICJ, Judge Mr. Weeramantry, gave new horizon to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. His crystal clear work in dissenting opinion in Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapon case (I.C.J. Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226), ICJ 1996 made alarming request to world that use of nuclear weapon in any form is illegal and harmful to world peace. His opinion brought an era of non-proliferation diplomacy and call for nuclear disarmament.

He directly observed that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever. It violates the fundamental principles of international law, and represents the very negation of the humanitarian concerns which underlie the structure of humanitarian law. It offends conventional law and, in particular, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, and Article 23(a) of the Hague Regulations of 1907. It contradicts the fundamental principle of the dignity and worth of the human person on which all law depends. It endangers the human environment in a manner which threatens the entirety of life on the planet. His keen sensitivity towards world peace and establishment of international rule of law affirms the faith on international law in saving planet from scourge of war.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

The second most important contribution of Mr. Weeramantry was towards balance between environmental protection and economic development in light of sustainable development. His separate opinion in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case ( Hungary vs. Slovakia)[ Gabichikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)Summary of the Judgment of 25 September 1997] added new dimension to the concept of sustainable development which is an eye opener for environmental policy maker as well as for environmental assessment asking to balance between economic development and ecology which is established norms of sustainable development. His prolific scholarly and vibrant writings on issues of world environment, human rights provided solution to emerging challenges of Environmental instability and crisis during armed conflict which can easily be referred in case of confusion on the subject.

As a international law jurist his vibrant writings has been quoted by many international bodies on issue of nuclear arm race and nuclear disarmament. He was among few third world jurist across the globe who brought the problems of third world countries at international fora asking for special attention. He was staunch supporter of international rule of law, nuclear disarmament, peace, environmental protection and equality which has been always the need of an hour for world peace and cooperation. His open and liberal approach towards human rights and adherence to principle international law projected universal solution to make world a safe and rational place for survival of mankind in association of nature. With his sad demise world has lost a great reformer and international jurist whose decisions and writings will always enlighten the path of humanity and peace across the globe.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, South Asia

Open Letter to President-elect Donald Trump on Nuclear Weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter prepared by and published by The Nuclear Age Foundation

As president of the United States, you will have the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during your term of office.

The most certain way to fulfill this responsibility is to negotiate with the other possessors of nuclear weapons for their total elimination. The U.S. is obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in such negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

A nuclear war, any nuclear war, would be an act of insanity. Between nuclear weapons states, it would lead to the destruction of the attacking nation as well as the attacked. Between the U.S. and Russia, it would threaten the survival of humanity.

There are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which the United States possesses more than 7,000. Some 1,000 of these remain on hair-trigger alert. A similar number remain on hair-trigger alert in Russia. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Even if nuclear weapons are not used intentionally, they could be used inadvertently by accident or miscalculation. Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are a dangerous mix.

Nuclear deterrence presupposes a certain view of human behavior. It depends on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It provides no guarantees or physical protection. It could fail spectacularly and tragically.

You have suggested that more nations – such as Japan, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia – may need to develop their own nuclear arsenals because the U.S. spends too much money protecting other countries. This nuclear proliferation would make for a far more dangerous world. It is also worrisome that you have spoken of dismantling or reinterpreting the international agreement that places appropriate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and has the support of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

As other presidents have had, you will have at your disposal the power to end civilization as we know it. You will also have the opportunity, should you choose, to lead in ending the nuclear weapons era and achieving nuclear zero through negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

We, the undersigned, urge you to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world. It would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Partial list of initial signatories. For full list and link to add your signature, click here.

David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Richard Falk, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Daniel Ellsberg, Distinguished Fellow, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Oliver Stone, Film director

Setsuko Thurlow, Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivor

Anders Wijkman, Co-President, Club of Rome

Helen Caldicott, Founding President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ben Ferencz, Former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor

Robert Jay Lifton, Columbia University

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

Martin Hellman, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University

Robert Laney, Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Ruben Arvizu, Latin America Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute

Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder, Code Pink

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

Barry Ladendorf, President, Veterans for Peace

Dr. Hafsat Abiola-Costello, Founder and President, Kudirat Initiative for Democracy

Marie Dennis, Co-President, Pax Christi International

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Confessions of a Megalomaniac by Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom (Israel)

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. ,

An article by Uri Avnery from Transcend

The Arab taxi driver who brought me to Ramallah had no trouble with the Israeli border posts. He just evaded them.

Saves a lot of trouble.

I was invited by Mahmood Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority (as well as of the PLO and the Fatah movement) to take part in joint Palestinian-Israeli consultations in advance of the international conference in Paris.

Since Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to take part in the Paris event side by side with Mahmood Abbas, the Ramallah meeting was to demonstrate that a large part of Israeli society does support the French initiative.

SIMPLE AS it sounds, the Ramallah meeting was not simple at all.

Before the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, such meetings were almost routine. Since our groundbreaking first meeting in Beirut in 1982, during the Israeli blockade, Arafat met many Israelis.

Arafat had almost absolute moral authority, and even his home-grown rivals accepted his judgment. Since, after our first meeting, he decided that Israeli-Palestinian meetings served the cause of Palestinian-Israeli peace, he encouraged many such events.

After his murder, the opposite trend gained the upper hand. Palestinian extremists held that any meetings with Israelis, whoever they might be, served “normalization” – a terrible, terrible bogeyman.

Abbas has now put an end to this nonsense. Like me, he believes that Palestinian statehood and independence can come about only through a joint struggle of the peace forces on both sides, with the help of international forces.

In this spirit, he invited us to Ramallah, since Palestinians are not normally allowed into Israeli territory.

He seated me next to him on the stage, and so the meeting started.

MAHMOOD ABBAS – or “Abu Mazen”‘, as he is generally known – was gracious enough to mention that he and I have been friends for 34 years since we first met in Tunis, soon after the PLO had left Beirut and moved there.

Through a number of years, when my friends and I came to Tunis, the same procedure was followed: first we met with Abu Mazen, who was in charge of Israeli affairs, and drew up plans for joint action. Then we all moved to Arafat’s office. Arafat, who had an almost uncanny capacity for making quick decisions, would decide within minutes “yes” or ‘no”.

There could hardly be two more different characters than Abu-Amar (Arafat) and Abu-Mazen. Arafat was a “warm” type. He embraced and kissed his visitors in the old Arab style – a kiss on each cheek for ordinary visitors, three kisses for preferred ones. After five minutes, you felt as if you had known him all your life.

Mahmood Abbas is a much more reserved person. He embraces and kisses too, but it does not come quite as naturally as with Arafat. He is more withdrawn. He looks more like a high-school principal.

I have a lot of respect for Mahmood Abbas. He needs tremendous courage to do his job – the leader of a people under brutal military occupation, compelled to cooperate with the occupation in some matters, endeavoring to resist in others. The aim of his people is to endure and survive. He is good at that.

When I complimented him on his courage, he laughed and said that it was more courageous of me to enter Beirut during the siege of 1982. Thanks.

The Israeli government succeeded, even before Netanyahu, in splitting the Palestinians in the country into two. By the simple device of refusing to honor their solemn pledge under Oslo to create four “safe passages” between The West Bank and Gaza, they made a split almost inevitable.

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

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

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(article continued from left column)

Now, while officially treating the moderate Abbas as a friend and the extremist Hamas in Gaza as an enemy, our government behaves exactly the other way. Hamas is tolerated, Abbas is considered an enemy. That seems perverse but is really quite logical: Abbas can sway public opinion throughout the world in favor of a Palestinian state, Hamas cannot.

AFTER THE Ramallah meeting, in a private session, I submitted to Abbas a plan for consideration.

It is based on the appreciation that Netanyahu will never agree to real peace negotiations, since these will lead inevitably to the Two-State Solution, tut-tut-tut.

I propose to convene a “Popular Peace Conference”, which will meet, say, once a month inside the country. In each session, the conference will deal with one of the paragraphs of the future peace agreement, such as the final location of the borders, the character of the borders (open?), Jerusalem, Gaza, water resources, security arrangements, refugees, and so on.

An equal number of experts and activists from each side will deliberate, put everything on the table and thrash it all out. If agreement can be reached, wonderful. If not, the proposals of both sides will be clearly defined and the item left for later.

In the end, after, say, half a year, the final “popular peace agreement” will be published, even with defined disagreements, for the guidance of the peace movements on both sides. Deliberations on the disagreements will continue until agreement is found.

Abbas listened attentively, as is his wont, and in the end I promised to send him a written memorandum. I just did so, after consulting with some of my colleagues, like Adam Keller, the Gush Shalom spokesman.

Mahmood Abbas is now preparing to attend the Paris conference, the official aim of which is to mobilize the world for the Two-State Solution.

SOMETIMES I WONDER how I do not get infected with megalomania. (Some of my friends believe that this cannot happen to me, since I already am a megalomaniac.)

A few weeks after the end of the 1948 war, a tiny group of young people in the new State of Israel met in Haifa to debate a path to peace based on what is now called the Two-State solution. One was a Jew (me), one a Muslim and one a Druze. I, just released from hospital, was still wearing my army uniform.

The group was completely ignored by everybody. No takers.

Some ten years later, when I was already a member of the Knesset (as, by the way, were the other two), I went abroad to see who could be convinced. I wandered around Washington DC, met with important people in the White House, the State Department and the UN delegations in New York. On the way home I was received in the Foreign Offices in London, Paris and Berlin.

No takers, anywhere. A Palestinian state? Nonsense. Israel must deal with Egypt, Jordan et al.

I made many dozens of speeches about this proposal in the Knesset. Some powers started to take it up. The first was the Soviet Union, though rather late, under Leonid Brezhnev (1969). Others followed.

Today there is no one around who believes in anything but the Two-State Solution. Even Netanyahu pretends to believe in it, if only the Palestinians would become Jews or emigrate to Greenland.

Yes, I know that I didn’t do it. History did it. But I might be excused for feeling just a tiny little bit of pride. Or a mini-megalomania.

THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION is neither good nor bad. It is the only.

The only solution there is.

I know that there are a number of good, even admirable people who believe in the so-called One-State Solution. I would ask them to consider the details: what it would look like, how it would actually function, the army, the police, the economy, the parliament. Apartheid? Perpetual civil war?

No. Since 1948 everything has changed, but nothing has changed.

Sorry, the Two-State Solution is still the only game in town.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

The Elders welcome Paris Mideast peace conference, urge all P5 states to show leadership

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. ,

A press release from The Elders

The Elders welcomed the latest international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held in Paris on 15 January 2017 at the initiative of the French Government, and commended their leadership in pushing for a viable two-state solution.

They urged all the wider international community, and in particular all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to play an active and concerted role to secure a lasting and just peace for the peoples of Israel and Palestine.

The Elders reiterated their support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334 passed in December 2016 which condemned all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and all acts of violence and terror. They hoped this consensus in the Council is maintained in the coming months as the best chance of ensuring the survival of the two-state solution.

Kofi Annan, Chair of The Elders, said:

“The French government has worked hard over the past twelve months to garner international support for a viable two-state solution. It is vital that these calls are heeded and efforts redoubled by all key players, especially on the UN Security Council. Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and all States in the region and beyond, must abjure obstructionism which will only prolong the sufferings of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

Lakhdar Brahimi, Elder and international conflict mediator, said:

“Yesterday’s Paris conference sent out an important message to the world. Scores of nations gathered, demonstrating the international community’s desire to promote the best hope for a sustainable peace for Israelis and Palestinians: two states living peacefully side by side. Any moves that imperil that solution, including settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, are incompatible with international law and UN resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016.”

Question related to this article:
DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

Civil Society and the UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

December 2016 Newsletter of UNFOLD ZERO

On December 3, 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted ground-breaking Resolution 71/71, supported by over 140 countries, calling for the start of negotiations on an international treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, and affirming its earlier decision to hold a High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018 to review progress on such a treaty.

The UN has previously held high level meetings on nuclear disarmament, but these were not much more than talk-shops.

In contrast, the 2018 event will be the first time the UN General Assembly has held a high level conference on nuclear disarmament. Such an event carries with it the expectation of deliberations to reach an agreement or agreements on concrete nuclear disarmament measures.

The 2018 UN Conference, and its preparatory process, provide a unique opportunity for civil society and like-minded governments to elevate the issue of nuclear disarmament globally and build political pressure on the nuclear-reliant States to agree to specific nuclear disarmament proposals at the conference.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

A UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament: Distraction or progress?

(Continued from left column)

Similar UN high level conferences on other difficult global issues – such as sustainable development, climate change and refugees – have had considerable success engaging all relevant States and civil society to achieve concrete results.

The UN conference on nuclear disarmament could, for example, aim for:

• Non-nuclear States (and maybe others) to announce at the conference their ratification of the nuclear prohibition treaty which will most likely be negotiated by 2018 (see UN agrees to nuclear prohibition negotiations);

• Agreement by the nuclear armed and allied States that their sole purpose for nuclear weapons is to deter other nuclear weapons and that they would never use nuclear weapons first;

• A decision to convene a conference for the establishment of a Middle East Zone free from nuclear weapons and other WMD;

• A framework agreement (or political declaration) to achieve the prohibition of any use of nuclear weapons and the phased elimination of nuclear weapons.
 
UNFOLD ZERO is organising a number of private meetings on the UN High Level Conference with governments, as well as open consultation meetings with non-governmental organisations in Geneva, London, New York, Vienna, Washington and other locations in early 2017.

At these meetings we will discuss strategy and campaign activities to build success for the UN High Level Conference.

For more information see UN to hold High Level Conference on nuclear disarmament.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,