Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

The historic visit of Barack Obama to Hiroshima marks a new stage in the international mobilization against nuclear weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Huffington Post by Eddie Ait, Deputy Secretary General of the Radical Left Party (PRG), Philippe Rio, Mayor of Grigny and President-AFCDRP Mayors for Peace France, and Jacqueline Belhomme, Mayor of Malakoff and vice-President of the International network (translated by CPNN)

The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is at Hiroshima today [May 27] for an historic visit: the first by a US leader almost 71 years after the order of President Truman launched the first two nuclear attacks in history on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (9 August).

Hiroshima

For the International Mayors for Peace network, chaired by the mayors of these two martyr cities, and its French branch AFCDRP, such a visit is a positive sign which may mark a new stage in the international mobilization for achieving the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, as provided in the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since its creation in 1982, Mayors for Peace has continued to invite world leaders to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the years, more and more embassies have attended its commemorations. Last April, the arrival in Hiroshima of the Foreign Ministers of the G7, including three representatives of nuclear states -United States, France and United Kingdom- was already a step forward. As senior officials of States, all NPT signatories, they were willing to see with their own eyes the city that was a victim of this inhuman weapon, with indiscriminate effects.

US atomic bombs completely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They turned the cities into immense mass graves. In Hiroshima, the chamber of commerce building, now the Dome of the atomic bomb, could hardly stand. It now shows the power of the blast. In 1945, over 200,000 people have died, victims of the explosion or radiation in the days and weeks that followed. After such horror, the survivors, the Hibakusha, have never ceased to carry a message of peace that no one should suffer as they have suffered. Their message has been relayed tirelessly by local representatives of more than 7,000 communities in 161 countries who are members of the Mayors for Peace network.

Primarily responsible for the safety of our citizens in case of conflict, we have a keen awareness of the magnitude of the nuclear threat to the world as a whole. We cannot take the risk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki being repeated, because today it would entail a suicidal escalation. For this reason, we must act on two levels: locally, by addressing the roots of conflict, drawing on the resources of the culture of peace as defined by UNESCO, and globally by working together with Hiroshima and Nagasaki to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

There are still about 16,000 nuclear weapons on the globe. These weapons threaten the very existence of the human being and his environment. This “total risk” undermines humanity, opening the way to all sorts of deadly excesses that only a culture of peace and reconciliation can solve.

All elected officials in France who are inspired by the symbolic gesture made by the American President in Hiroshima are encouraged to join our network, the French Association of Communities, Departments and REgions for Peace.

(Click here for the original version in French)

Question related to this article:

Text of President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Transcript printed by the New York Times

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.

Obama
Video of Obama speech from Bloomberg news

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.

Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.

Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction. How the very spark that marks us as a species, our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our toolmaking, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.

Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos, but those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.

(Transcript continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Transcript continued from left column)

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.

Some day, the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.

And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we build. And perhaps, above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.

For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story, one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens. But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.

That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here, 71 years ago.

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.

Pan-African Parliament calls on African Union to support the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the website of the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Yesterday [May 12], the Pan-African Parliament called on the African Union and Africa’s governments to support the creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, in short UNPA. In a resolution adopted by the plenary by consensus, the parliamentary body of the African Union states that “a UNPA is necessary to strengthen democratic participation and representation of the world’s citizens in the UN” and that the new assembly would “contribute to strengthening democratic oversight over UN operations, particularly in Africa.”

panafrican
Click on photo to enlarge

Noting its “concern that the creation of a UNPA is currently not part of the official UN reform agenda,” the document calls on “the African Union and its Member States to support the creation of a UNPA and to take necessary steps to advance this goal at the UN by triggering and initializing a preparatory intergovernmental process for the purpose of establishing a UNPA.”

The president of the Pan-African Parliament, Nkodo Dang from Cameroon, stated last week that “more than 70 years after the establishment of the United Nations, global interdependence has made us all world citizens. It is long overdue that ‘We, the Peoples,’ as the UN Charter begins, have more say in global affairs. For this purpose, a UNPA needs to be established.”

Yesterday’s resolution was introduced by Ivone Soares from Mozambique. “The resolution shows the aspiration of the Pan-African Parliament and the African citizens which it represents that the global order needs to become more democratic. It is time for governments to pay attention to this issue. They need to enter into serious deliberations on the establishment of a parliamentary body at the UN and African governments could take the lead,” she commented.

The global coordinator of the international campaign for a UNPA, Andreas Bummel, said that the resolution was an important step forward. “We hope that African governments will play a leading role and the Pan-African Parliament’s support is crucial to achieve this. The next step that we envisage in the international efforts is the creation of an informal group of open-minded governments at the UN in New York that looks into the proposal of a UNPA and how to proceed best,” he said.

In an opinion piece published by the South African newspaper Mail & Guardian last week, the South African parliamentarians Stevens Mokgalapa and Heinrich Volmink argued that “Africans, perhaps more than anyone, know how urgently we need more capable and more democratic tools of global governance” and that the creation of a UNPA “would represent a watershed moment in the democratic reform of the UN.”

According to a recent BBC World Service poll in 18 countries, “more than half of those asked (56%) in emerging economies saw themselves first and foremost as global citizens rather than national citizens.”

In 2007, the Pan-African Parliament adopted a first resolution in support of a UNPA.

Question for this article:

Calls for UN Security council reform at Istanbul summit

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Handan Kazanci & Ilgin Karlidag, Anadolou Agency, Turkey

World leaders in Istanbul have called for an urgent change to the United Nations Security Council, limiting the power of veto by its five permanent members, including Russia.

ArabLeague
Ahmed Ben Hali with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Click on photo to enlarge

Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Hali told the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on Tuesday: “Reform of the UN Security Council is urgently needed. “The use of veto should be rationalized. There should be a departure from the approach of management of crisis … to depart from double standards in dealing with issues of peace and security and to prosecute those committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The Arab League consists of 22 member states, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Ben Hali’s comments echoed those of summit host and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who on Monday said the UN Security Council must “urgently” change in order to fulfill its functions.

Each of the permanent members – Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States – have the power of veto, allowing them to block draft council resolutions – even when these have broad international support.

Erdogan called for the veto by the council’s five permanent members to be limited, a move which Russia – a permanent member of the UN Security Council – is against.

In 2012, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. The move sparked criticism worldwide and prevented substantial UN-backed action with regards to the Syrian civil war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declined his invitation to the Istanbul summit, the humanitarian news agency IRIN reported on May 10. In his place, Putin sent a delegation, whose head, Russian Deputy Emergencies Minister Sergey Voronov, said on Tuesday that his country opposes any limitations to the power of veto by any permanent member of the Security Council.

According to James Nixey, the head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at London-based Chatham House, Putin’s non-attendance at the summit is not surprising. “Vladimir Putin would be rather embarrassed at a world humanitarian summit considering the criticism his regime takes for its aggressive behavior abroad and its human rights record at home,” told Anadolu Agency on Tuesday. “Russia views its veto as pure power, and there is zero chance that it would endorse any move to give up wielding such power, which it has used so effectively in the past,” he added.

Criticized internationally for its role in backing the Assad regime, Russia said in a statement obtained by IRIN that it “refuses to be bound by the results of a process it says failed to include its views”.

Question for this article:

IWPR Holds Landmark Afghan Peace Conference

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting

A groundbreaking conference organised by IWPR in Kabul has produced new recommendations on how the Afghan government can move forward with the reconciliation process. The three-day event was convened in cooperation with the Afghan High Peace Council, the body created in 2010 to facilitate talks with the armed opposition. Government officials, religious leaders, civil society activists and journalists from across Afghanistan were among the 70 people who gathered at the Intercontinental Hotel on May 15-17. Religious scholars from Egypt’s famed Al-Azhar university were also invited.

Afghan
Click on the photo to enlarge and to read the legend.

The conference was part of a two-year IWPR initiative designed to draw Afghans into a nationwide discussion on peace building and reconciliation. Afghan Reconciliation: Promoting Peace and Building Trust by Engaging Civil Society, supported by the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, has so far engaged more than 18,000 Afghans nationwide.

Participants in some 180 panel events have had the opportunity to discuss a range of issues related to peace and reconciliation. More than a dozen call-in radio forums have spread the message further.

“The conference allowed us to share with experts and representatives of the Afghan government our findings and efforts over the past 20 months,” explained Noorrahman Rahmani, IWPR Afghanistan country director.

The working committees used IWPR’s data and feedback to help formulate final proposals, announced at a press conference on the last day of the event. These recommendations stressed the importance of including women and young people in any peace talks and preventing the use of religion as a tool for justifying violence. To that end, the conference called for new controls over mosques and religious education centres as well as creating a central Islamic authority in Kabul to deal with such issues.

One innovative recommendation was the inclusion of a course devoted to peace in the educational curricula of schools and universities.

“Holding the three-day peace conference in Kabul was a major milestone towards the successful completion of IWPR’s 24-month project promoting peace and reconciliation,” Rahmani said. “It wasn’t easy given the recent security developments and unrest in Kabul. “Despite this, IWPR was able to successfully organise and hold the conference, which led to the development of a set of recommendations that will hopefully help the Afghan government and its international partners to approach the ongoing peace process more effectively.”

CYCLE OF CONFLICT

More than three decades of war have extracted a heavy price from the Afghan people, leaving millions dead, many more displaced, a country in ruins and a legacy of bitterness that will take years to overcome. The limited reach of central government, the volatile mix of political, regional and ethnic loyalties, and the heavily militarised social environment make it difficult to move beyond the continuous cycle of conflict. Continued suicide bombings and other attacks underline the enormity of the task ahead, as well as the religious aspect of both conflict and reconciliation. The armed opposition often justifies its actions through its call for jihad or holy war.

With that in mind, experts were brought over from the Al-Azhar university in Egypt, a key Islamic authority, to give their views on the religious aspect of the conflict.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article: Is peace possible in Afghanistan?

(continued from left column)

Mohamed Salem Mohamed Abouaasy, the dean of the Shariah faculty at Al-Azhar, said, “Those who consider jihad and martyrdom permissible in Afghanistan are wrong, because Afghanistan is an Islamic country and the call to prayer is heard here. Thus, this country cannot be regarded as a battlefield from an Islamic perspective.”

Keramatullah Sediqi, of the Afghan ministry of hajj and religious affairs, agreed. “War between two Muslims is unlawful in Islam,” he said.

Fazel Nagar, a civil society activist from Nangarhar province, said that the inclusion of experts from al-Azhar had been particularly wise. “The presence of the Egyptian religious scholars will be very effective in the outcome of the conference, because the people of Afghanistan respect Egyptian religious scholars deeply,” he said. “We understand better now that the war in Afghanistan is illegitimate, because the highest academic source called the war unlawful based on Shariah provisions.”

The conference also discussed the importance of securing the country’s borders. The Durand Line, a poorly defined boundary established by the British in 1893, has long been a source of friction with Pakistan. Kabul does not recognise the Durand Line, whereas Islamabad would like to see it formalised as the official frontier.

Abdul Ghafur Lewal, the deputy minister of borders and tribal affairs, noted that some people argued that recognising the Durand Line would solve all bilateral tensions. This was a mistake, he said. “Pakistan will not be silent simply if the Durand Line is recognised. If we recognise Durand, we should think about how we plan on defending Kabul [from attack].”

Lewal stressed that borders needed to be protected by well-trained security forces with up-to-date equipment. “Criminal groups involved in the smuggling of drugs, and [wasted resources] from our forests and mines… are problems that endanger the country’s security,” he added.

The conference also highlighted the importance of resolving Afghanistan’s water issues.

Sultan Mahmoud Mahmoudi of the ministry of energy and water, said that neighbouring countries had long exploited Afghanistan’s abundant natural resources. He said that 80 billion cubic metres of water flowed unchecked from Afghanistan into neighbouring countries each year, with most of this used by Pakistan and Iran. “One of the main reasons for the war is that Afghanistan’s neighbors interfere so as to prevent plans to control natural water resources in the country, because our neighbors have used our country’s waters for free for centuries,” he said. “They don’t want us to control our own waters so they try to inflame the war in Afghanistan.”

Conference participants were delighted with the outcome of the event.

“These efforts are effective in institutionalising a culture of peace,” said High Peace Council vice-chairman Ataurrahman Salim. “I hope such conferences will be held in the future as well.

“The last day of the conference coincided with the day on which the Afghan government reached a final agreement with the Gulbuddin Hekmatyar-led [jihadi party] Hizb-e Islami, an opponent of the government,” he continued. “This is good news for ensuring peace and security in the country.”

Mohammad Omar Satay, who heads the secretariat of the High Peace Council in Kandahar province, agreed. “This conference inspired us to further strengthen the spirit of coexistence among Afghans,” he said. “ Now the time has come for us to devote ourselves to peace.”

Others said that the summit had been a fitting end to an extensive programme of IWPR discussions on peace and reconciliation.

Shukria Neda, a civil society activist from Bamyan, said that over the last two years she had taken part in the debates IWPR had organised in her home province. “Now I participated in the peace conference following those programmes. We learned new strategies for peace at the conference. The issue should be a priority for every Afghan, because we all have a thirst for peace.”

A Joint Declaration on the Environment, Social Inequality and Elimination of Nuclear Threat, with a Proposal for UN reform

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

From the Website of the Joint Declaration

We, individuals and institutions that are profoundly concerned about the earth’s present state, particularly by potentially irreversible social and environmental processes, and about the lack of an effective, democratic multilateral entity respected by all that is essential for world governance at this extraordinarily complex and changing time,

mayor

URGE YOU

to adhere to this joint declaration in order to contribute to the rapid adoption of the following measures, the grounds for which are attached hereto as Document I and Document II.

Environment

The current tendencies, resulting from a deplorable economic system based solely on making fast profits, must be urgently reversed to avoid reaching a point of no return. Both President Obama –“we are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it”- as well as Pope Francis –“(…) intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us”- have with wisdom and leadership warned of the immediate actions that must be taken concerning climate change. We must invent the future. The distinctive creative capacity of human beings is our hope. As Amin Maalouf has underscored, “unprecedented situations require unprecedented solutions”.

We live at a crucial moment in the history of mankind in which both population growth and the nature of our activities influence the habitability of the earth (anthropocene).

All other interests must be subordinated to an in-depth understanding of reality. The scientific community, guided by the “democratic principles” so clearly set forth in the UNESCO Constitution, should counsel political leaders (at the international, regional, national and municipal levels) concerning the actions to be taken, not only in their role as advisors, but also to provide foresight. Knowledge to foresee, foresight to prevent.

It is clear that accurate diagnoses have already been made but that they haven’t led to what is really important: the right and timely treatment.

Communications media and social networks must constantly strive to achieve a resounding outcry, a sense of solidarity and responsibility, adopting personal and collective resolutions at all levels –including radical changes in institutions- capable of halting the current decline before it is too late.

As President Nelson Mandela reminded us, “the supreme duty of each generation is to properly take care of the next”.

2-Social inequality and extreme poverty

It is humanly intolerable that each day thousands of people die of hunger and neglect, the majority of them children between the ages of one and five, while at the same time 3 billion dollars are invested in weapons and military spending. This is particularly true when, as is currently the case, funds for sustainable human development have been unduly and wrongfully reduced. The lack of solidarity of the wealthiest toward the poor has reached limits that can no longer be tolerated. For the transition from an anti-ecological economy of speculation, delocalization of production and war to a knowledge-based economy for global sustainable and human development, and from a culture of imposition, violence and war to a culture of dialogue, conciliation, alliances and peace, we must immediately proceed to do away with the (G7, G8, G20) groups of plutocrats and re-establish ethical values as the basis for our daily behaviour.

3-Elimination of the nuclear threat and disarmament for development

The nuclear threat continues to pose an unbelievably sinister and ethically untenable danger. Well-regulated disarmament for development would not only guarantee international security, but would also provide the necessary funds for global development and the implementation of the United Nations’ priorities (food, water, health, environment, life-long education for all, scientific research and innovation, and peace).

(continued in right column)

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

Question for this article:

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(continued from left column)

For these so relevant and urgent reasons

WE PROPOSE

Calling an extraordinary session of the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the necessary urgent social and environmental measures and, moreover, to establish the guidelines for the re-founding of a democratic multilateral system. The “new UN System” with a General Assembly of 50% of States representatives and 50% of representatives of civil society, and adding to the present Security Council and Environmental Council and a Socio-Economic Council, has been studied in depth. In all cases, no veto but weighted vote.

***

In view of the poor progress made toward fulfilling the Millennium Objectives (ODM) and, given the present lack of solidarity, increased social inequality and subordination to the dictates of commercial consortia, no one believes that the Sustainable Development Objectives (SDOs) to be adopted in September will actually be implemented.

The solution is inclusive participative democracy in which all aspects of the economy are subordinated to social justice.

Jose Luis Sampedro left a fantastic legacy to young people: “You will have to change both ship and course”. The attached report (I) outlines recent events and projects that leave room for optimism. Human beings, who today may express themselves freely thanks to digital technology, now have global awareness while, moreover, decision making is increasingly influenced by growing numbers of women, the cornerstone of this new era. A historical turning point is drawing near that will enable us to take the reins of our common destiny in our own hands.

First Signatories

Federico Mayor (President of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace and former Director General of UNESCO)

Mikhail Gorbachev (Former President of the Soviet Union, President of Green Cross International and World Political Forum)

Mario Soares (Former President of Portugal and President of the Fundaçao Mario Soares)

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Former General Secretary ONU)

Garry Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer of the World Academy of Art & Science)

Colin Archer (Secretary General), Ingeborg Breines (Co-President) and Reiner Braun (Co-President) of the International Peace Bureau

Roberto Savio (Founder and President of IPS- International Press Service)

François de Bernard (President and Co-Founder of the GERM (Group for Study and Research on Globalization)

Alexander Likhotal (Green Cross International)

Miguel Ángel Moratinos (ex Ministro Español de Asuntos Exteriores – Presidente de REDS)

Ricardo Díez Hochleitner (Presidente de Honor del Capítulo Español del Club de Roma)

José Manuel Morán (Vicepresidente Capítulo Español del Club de Roma)

Trinidad Bernal (Secretaria General Fundación ATYME)

Julio E. Celis (Danish Cancer Society)

Jean Paul Carteron (Chairman and Founder Crnas Montana Forum)

Anwarul Chowdhury (Ambassador, Founder Global Movement for the Culture of Peace and former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN New York)

Denis Torres (Instituto Martin Luther King – Managua, Nicaragua)

María Novo (Catedrática UNESCO de Educación Ambiental y Desarrollos Sostenible Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) – España)

Rustem Khairov (Director International Foundation for Survival and Development Humanity)

Alejandro Tiana Ferrer (Rector Universidad de Educación a Distancia (UNED))

Negoslav Ostojic (ECPD)

Prof. José María Sanz (Rector Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)

Prof. Rafael Garesse (Vicerrector de Innovación y Política Científica de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)

Anaisabel Prera Anaisabel Prera Flores (DEMOS Institut Guatemala – former Minister of Culture of Guatemala and Director of FCP in Madrid (2000-2004)

Frank LaRue (Demos Institut Guatemala)

Anabella Rivera (Demos Institut Guatemala)

Jordi Armadans, Director de FundiPau (Fundació per la Pau)

Enrique Barón Crespo

Carlos Jiménez Villarejo

Juan José Tamayo

Manuel Núñez Encabo (Fundación Antonio Machado)

Juan Manuel de Faramiñan

Emilio Muñoz

Natalia Muñoz-Casayús

María Quintana Romero

Jerónimo Asensio Rueda

Court victory gives momentum to long struggle against London arms fair

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article byJavier Gárate, Waging Nonviolence (abbreviated)

After a week-long trial that ended on April 15, a judge from the Stratford Magistrate Court in London found me and seven co-defendants not guilty for our actions last September to shut down the Defence Security and Equipment International arms fair, or DSEI, on the basis that we were preventing a greater crime. This is a huge victory in the long struggle to shut down one of the largest arms fairs in the world, which takes place in east London every other year.

armsfair
The activists celebrated when their not guilty verdict was announced outside the court on April 15. (WNV/Andrew Dey)
Click on the photo to enlarge

The last fair was in September 2015, and it saw more than 1,500 exhibitors from around the world displaying the latest technology of the war industry. DSEI is an invitation-only event, where invites go to governments, industry representatives and specialized press. Delegations from repressive regimes and countries violating human rights — such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel — walk through its corridors every other year browsing the latest weaponry. This huge event is not just to showcase the latest technology, but also to facilitate new sales. . .

It all started on September 7 with a day of action to stop arming Israel. The first action was a blockade — for hours — of an armored vehicle that was heading to the Excel Centre. On the days that followed there were actions focused on faith groups against war profiteering, the arms trade and climate change, academics against the arms trade, and freedom of movement, not of weapons. The week concluded with a “Big Day of Action.” The Stop the Arms Fair coalition and Campaign Against Arms Trade, or CAAT, provided the general frame for the different focuses each day and supported groups taking actions, but each group doing an action was self-organized.

By connecting the issue of the arms trade to other struggles — such as Palestinian solidarity, climate change and refugees — it meant that a diversity of groups got involved during the week. Important bridges were built between movements, and the arms trade was seen not as an isolated problem but rather as part of the wider struggle for social justice. . . .

We decided to do our action on the Big Day of Action called for on September 12, which had the aim of gathering as many people as possible to continue to disrupt preparations for the arms fair. During the morning of the action there were speeches from a wide range of groups and organizations. As the day progressed, we took the streets and the police began to remove us to let the traffic pass. At one point, the police were taking longer to act, and the three of us took our gear, ran to the road and got on the ground, locking ourselves together using the arm tubes.

This meant we had secured the blockade for some time, as the police in the United Kingdom — in most cases — will not just move you if you are locking on. The blockade provided a perfect place for people to gather, and a loudspeaker was used to continue with presentations. During the hours that we were on the blockade we heard from Isa Alaali, a Bahraini citizen, about the torture he experienced, as well as the U.K. military’s support of the Bahraini regime. We also heard from Mexican activists about the Ayotzinapa struggle for justice and the militarization of Mexican society.

From the beginning, the police came to tell us that if we didn’t unlock ourselves they would arrest us. But they didn’t seem to be in much of a hurry. Hours passed and there was no sign that they were going to cut our tubes and arrest us. After several hours the police finally made their move, clearing the road of all the other protesters. In the end, they arrested the three of us on charges of willful obstruction of the highway.

Even though at any moment we could have released ourselves and avoided arrest, we wanted to maintain the blockade to disrupt the preparations of the arms fair for as long as possible. We were also aware that arrest could mean being charged and put on trial, but we didn’t really think much about it at the time. Our focus was on the action itself. After the arrest we were in custody for only a few hours before being given an order to come back to court a month later.

Putting the arms trade on trial

That court appearance was crucial. We could either plead guilty and pay a fine or plead not guilty and face a trial. It was not just the three of us in court, but everyone who had been arrested during the week of action against DSEI. For some time I was unsure what to plea. I wasn’t really in the position to face a long trial, and it seemed that the chances of winning in court were small. But at the same time I saw it as an opportunity to learn how to use the court in campaigning, as I had been arrested in the past but never gone to court. The fact that all the other arrestees were clear on pleading not guilty helped me make the decision. This was a collective action and we would treat the trial collectively as well. The goal was to put the arms trade on trial by facing trial ourselves. . . .

During the trial, which was scheduled to last five days, we heard evidence from all eight co-defendants. Among them was Alaali, who was forced to flee Bahrain after being imprisoned and tortured for his participation in the 2011 protests. During the uprising, thousands of Bahrainis protested and were crushed by force with a violent intervention from Saudi Arabia. Thousands were arrested and hundreds killed. Isa told the court that he was arrested three times in 2013, and that police held a gun to his head. He was taken to the police station and stripped and beaten until he became unconscious. The police tied his hands behind his back, beat him and threatened to cut off his penis in an effort to force him to give false confessions. Bahrain has purchased nearly $65 million of weapons from the United Kingdom since the 2011 uprising. Needless to say, Isa felt compelled to protest at DSEI.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(continued from left column)

Lisa Butler, another co-defendant, highlighted the ongoing mass killings of the Kurdish people by Turkey. Having visited Kurdistan recently, she explained to the judge about the violent curfews that have been imposed on Kurdish cities. Tanks and rockets have been firing shells and mortars into the cities and snipers have been gunning people down on the street, including children. Instead of banning Turkey from DSEI, the British government welcomed these war criminals with open arms.

Other defendants stated that they were particularly concerned with the sales of arms to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel. As such, they were compelled to act because illegal weapons, such as torture equipment, have been found at previous DSEI events.

“In every single previous arms fair, at least since 2005, illegal activity has been found to be happening,” co-defendant Tom Franklin told the court. “We have evidence of that. We have parliamentary reports. We have reports from Amnesty International. We have reports from Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, listing illegal weapons being sold.”

When my turn came to give evidence I was quite nervous. The entire time that I was being cross-examined by the prosecution I felt like I was giving the wrong answers, undermining my case. But at the same time, I knew that it was the right thing to do — to stand there and denounce the crimes happening at DSEI. My statement also focused on growing up in Chile under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and the impact this had on me as a kid.

“I lived under a dictatorship for nearly 10 years. I remember curfews and a general sense of fear of the police and the military due to the horrible regime’s repression,” I testified. “The father of my school classmate was murdered by the secret police when I was six years old.” I also mentioned in court that for many years I had been protesting in different ways against DSEI and that for me the action was not just about ending the sale of illegal weapons, but to shut down the fair as a step toward stopping the war machine. After giving evidence, there was a huge weight taken off me.

We were joined in court by expert witnesses. Among them was Oliver Sprague from Amnesty International, who talked about the illegal weapons that have been sold at every DSEI arms fair. He also highlighted the “legal” weapons that are used illegally. In his report, Sprague gave evidence of arms being used in the Yemen war. “[The Yemen] conflict has cost at least 3,000 civilian lives, 2.5 million people [have been] displaced and 82 percent of the population — some 21.2 million people — currently require some form of humanitarian assistance,” he testified. “Importantly, official delegations from countries directly involved in military action in Yemen were in receipt of official U.K. government invitations to the event, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco and Jordan.”

Sprague told the court that Saudi Arabia is the largest recipient of U.K. arms. Indeed, from July to September 2015, the British government granted export licenses for bombs — of the type being used in Yemen by Saudi Arabia — worth $1.7 billion. This was four times greater than the total exported to all countries in the previous four years.

A key moment in the trial happened when the defense asked Sprague what difference all the evidence he has given to Parliament and other official committees about the crimes taking place at DSEI has made. “I have to say all this has made zero difference,” he replied, which supported our argument that it was necessary to take direct action to stop these illegalities from happening.

Kat Hobbs of CAAT gave the court an overview of Clarion Events, the company that organizes DSEI. “Sixty-one countries were formally invited to DSEI in 2015 by the government, and many more were invited by Clarion, who advertised the fair as the ‘place to do business,’” she said. “Of those 61 countries, 14 are classified as being authoritarian and six are at war, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey.”

Acquitted for preventing a greater crime

After the week-long trial it was time for the judge to present his judgement. “The defendants belief that weapons were being sold unlawfully at DSEI was supported by the detailed expert evidence on this point,” he stated. “I was impressed by the evidence of each defendant … as to how they came to the conclusion that the form of direct action which they chose to adopt was the only effective method left to them in seeking to prevent the unlawful sale of arms which they believed was occurring at the 2015 DSEI … I believe that the defendants were perfectly sincere in their conclusions first that the unlawful sale of arms would almost certainly be occurring at DSEI and, secondly, that their intervention was necessary to seek to prevent this.”

We were acquitted of all charges on the basis that our actions were justified in order to prevent a greater crime. It was “a wonderful moment in which research, activism and the law came together to produce a crucial decision,” said arms trade expert and former member of the South African Parliament Andrew Feinstein. “It is in this way that we will ultimately change the nature of the global arms trade.”

Since the trial verdict there has been extensive media coverage and interest in the case. There have also been calls for the government and the Metropolitan Police to investigate DSEI, but investigations have happened in the past, and as Sprague said, they have made zero difference. Therefore, it is crucial to continue to take action to shut down the fair.

The day of the verdict CAAT sent out a pledge for people to take action in 2017 and already nearly 500 people inspired by the court verdict have signed it. Among activists, there is a belief that next time, if we have enough people willing to put their bodies on the line — combined with other forms of actions — we can actually shut the arms fair down for good.

Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi Pushes for Peace With Ethnic Rebels

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Roshni Kapur in The Diplomat

Democratic icon and National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi has reached out to some of the oldest ethnic rebel groups in Myanmar. Her goal is clear: she wants to push for a wide-ranging peace accord with all insurgent groups, including those that refused to participate with the previous government.

Myanmar
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons/ Claude TRUONG-NGOC

Friction between minority groups and the government have been ongoing for decades. Myanmar is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in Asia. While the majority of the population is the Burman (Bamar) ethnic group making up an estimated 68 percent of the population, the remaining 32 of the population comprises a number of different groups, including the Shan (9 percent), Kayin (7 percent), Rakhine (3.5 percent), Chinese (2.5 percent), Mon (2 percent), Kachin (1.5 percent), Indians (1.25 percent), and Kayah (0.75 percent).

The tensions and antagonism are attributed to this heterogeneous composition. Myanmar’s ethnic groups are divided in terms of religion, language, and ideology, as well as being separated geographically. The British rulers tried to unite the variant ethnic groups before officially pulling out in 1947. Suu Kyi’s father, General Aung San, was a respected military leader who worked to unite various groups across the country for a democratic reform.

However, the Communist Party of Burma led firefights against some ethnic groups to maintain territorial control and a monopoly of power. As a result, many ethnic groups picked up arms to safeguard their states from majority rule. These ethnic rebel groups are located in remote parts of the country that do not receive sufficient international attention and are often simply labeled as “rebel armies” without any understanding the nuances of the situation.

Almost all ethnic groups have their own armies, which they have been using to protect their people and push for fundamental rights within their territory. The Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), one of the oldest rebel groups in the world, have demanded autonomy and ethnic rights for the Karen people since 1949. In 1961, the Kachin rebels formed the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), the military wing of the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO).

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article

Is there progress towards democracy and respect for human rights in Myanmar?

(continued from left column)

Many rebel groups have complained about the unrestrained force used by the state army. Around 3,700 villages have been destroyed in eastern Myanmar in the past 15 years.

Each tribe wants to protect its individual languages, customs, roots, and natural resources. Some ethnic groups have historical ties to China. The Kokang, who are ethnic Han, speak Mandarin and their militia leader, Phone Kyar Shin, lived in China for years. The United Wa State Army, which controls one of the largest holdout territories in Myanmar, reportedly has Chinese backing too. They use the Chinese currency and have named Mandarin an official language.

The previous government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Thein Sein, pushed for a ceasefire with some holdout militias in October 2015, but only eight of the 15 militant groups turned up to sign the proposal. The armed wings of the Kachin, Wa, and Shan refused to cooperate until all ethnic rebel groups agreed to be a part of the government’s initiative.

However, the NLD’s accession into power marks signs of optimism for the country. People are hopeful that a permanent peace accord is possible, since many ethnic groups have welcomed the newly elected government and are willing to join renewed peace talks. Suu Kyi’s vision of a peaceful reconciliation is similar to her late father’s. She wants to bring all ethnic groups together for a nonviolent means of reconciliation that will pave way for a democratic society. The Kachin and Karen rebels may trust Suu Kyi and the NLD’s vision of a peaceful reconciliation more the military junta and its political arm, National Unity Party (NUP).

“We are eager to start peace talks,” La Nan, a spokesman of the Kachin Independent Army, was quoted as saying in an online article by Thailand’s Nation Multimedia.

Other insurgent groups such as the United Wa State Army and the Shan State Army (SSA) have also welcomed the NLD’s triumphant victory and sent positive signals. Suu Kyi may take additional steps to reassure ethnic minorities that their vested interests will be represented in the NLD-led government for an inclusive and participative democracy.

Disarm! World Congress 2016 of International Peace Bureau

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Announcement by the International Peace Bureau

The World Congress of the International Peace Bureau will take place at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany, 30 September-03 October 2016:

ipb

OBJECTIVES OF CONGRESS

Bringing together a wide variety of experts, advocates and speakers from around the globe;

Including talks, presentations, roundtables, panel discussions, workshops, information booths, exhibitions, cultural activities;

High point in the recently-launched Global Campaign on Military Spending;

Apart from the Global Day of Action on Military Spending (mid-April), preparatory events will be held in major cities around the world over the coming year.

SPEAKERS

Speakers will come from a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds, including both the highest levels of society and grassroots voices, creative thinkers and cultural figures:

Nobel and Alternative Nobel Prize winners;
– elder statesmen/women;
– the social sciences, economics and politics in particular;
– the peace movement and other civil society sectors;
– parliamentarians, religious leaders, journalists, community organizers and artists…

(continued in right column)

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

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(continued from left column)

GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF CAMPAIGN

In 2014 the world’s governments spent over $1,700 billion on the military sector. We believe this money must instead be spent on:

Climate change mitigation/adaptation, preserving biodiversity;

Humanitarian programs to support the most vulnerable;

Peace: disarmament, conflict prevention & resolution, human security;

Public services / Social justice, human rights, gender equality and green job-creation;

Sustainable development, production and consumption patterns, anti-poverty programs, UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

We strongly believe the absolutely necessary ‘great transformation’ of global human society can only be achieved when also reallocating military expenditure and handling conflict differently. After all, we are facing a crisis of civilization, which is more far-reaching than an ecological and economic crisis alone.

We are living on one single Planet Earth but exploiting its resources as if we had three.

We witness how our predominant economic and developmental model has failed to provide justice, livelihood and human security for all. We now also face the resurgence of militarism and confrontational politics.

Hence, we view this priority shift in government spending as one element in a much broader global transformation towards a green, socially just and peaceful society!

The aim of this congress is to bring the issue of military spending, often seen as a technical question, into broad public debate and to strengthen the global community of activism.

Hence, we aim at wide support that goes far beyond peace organizations, such as from development, environment, faith, human rights, social welfare, women, workers’ and youth organizations.

(Thank you to Alicia Cabezudo for sending this announcement to CPNN)

Kofi Annan, Foreign Ministers Pledge Support for a Mine-Free World by 2025

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines

Former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan joined Foreign Ministers from Canada, Chile and Colombia in a packed room of Geneva’s Palais des Nations on 2 March 2016, pledging support for the Mine Ban Treaty as states embark on the “final stretch” towards a mine-free world. More than 35 donor states and states with landmine contamination, as well as mine clearance experts and UN bodies, explained how they will work towards this goal.

landmines

Other eminent personalities lending their support during the high-level panel opening the First International Pledging Conference for the Implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention included the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Director of the United Nations Office in Geneva, the Head of Danish Demining Group, and the Campaign Manager of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

The half-day conference highlighted the need for sustained financial resources and political support to meet the goals of the Mine Ban Treaty to the fullest extent possible by 2025, an aspirational deadline embraced by States Parties to the treaty during an international meeting in Maputo in 2014. It also aimed at ensuring sufficient resources for the treaty’s Implementation Support Unit.

Chile hosted the event, as current President of the Mine Ban Treaty, announcing that “Much remains to be done but the end is in sight. We are now in the last stretch towards a mine-free world!”

Sri Lanka surprised the audience with the announcement that the Cabinet had approved accession to the Mine Ban Treaty, a major development in South Asia where only three states (India, Nepal and Pakistan) will remain outside the treaty after Sri Lanka formally accedes.

1 March 2016 marked 17 years since the entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty, a historical instrument of disarmament and humanitarian law. Under the treaty, states have stopped using, producing and selling antipersonnel mines, they have destroyed some 49 million stockpiled mines, cleared vast tracts of land, and taken steps to provide assistance to victims of the weapon. With 162 States Parties, the Mine Ban Treaty is one of the most universally accepted treaties.

More about the Pledging Conference:

Highlights from the conference storified by Michael P. Moore from Landmines in Africa

Canada Recommits to a Mine-Free World while Sri Lanka Approves Accession to Ottawa Treaty, Mines Action Canada

A Mine-Free World Is Possible, Danish Refugee Council / Danish Demining Group

(Thank you to the Good News Agency for calling this to our attention.)

Question for this article: