Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Coronavirus: Ministers urged to divert military spending to tackle pandemic

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Peace Pledge Union

Boris Johnson is facing calls to reallocate “defence” budgets towarsd the NHS, social care and community support for people affected coronavirus and isolation.

The Peace Pledge Union  (PPU) said that bombs and guns cannot defend people from a pandemic.

The PPU has repeatedly accused UK governments of endangering the public by wasting money on preparations for war while doing little to prepare for real threats such as climate change or possible pandemics.

The UK government maintains the seventh highest military budget in the world.

The government’s own National Security Capability Review in 2018 listed major outbreaks of disease as one of the most likely threats facing the UK. The threat of pandemics was also identified by the government’s Strategic Defence and Security Reviews in 2010 and 2015.

While some troops  may be involved with tasks such as food distribution, the PPU pointed out that many other UK troops are about to take part in a large-scale NATO training exercise across Europe, which is one of the few major events not to be cancelled due to the coronavirus outbreak.

The PPU insisted that the NATO exercise should be immediately cancelled and the costs and people involved reallocated to helping to tackle the pandemic.

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:
 
Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

How can we work together to overcome this medical and economic crisis?

(Article continued from the left column)

The Peace Pledge Union said that money diverted from military budgets could contribute towards NHS and social care costs as well as initiatives to assist people who are losing their jobs or struggling to pay the rent owing to the coronavirus outbreak, or to support people whose mental health is affected by isolation.

The PPU added that this should mark the beginning of a permanent shift of funding away from armed force and towards measures that really make people safe, tackling problems such as ill-health, poverty and climate change.

Ceri Dare, a Public Health Researcher and member of the Peace Pledge Union (PPU), said:

“We could be facing this crisis, which the government’s own assessments told us was coming, with the weapons we truly needed to win: a resilient NHS, local councils funded to fulfil their responsibilities in Public Health, Social Care for disabled and older people. We could have had a society where the people who make our lives possible, the cleaners, the shelf-stackers, the waste collectors, the social care workers, the delivery drivers, were paid and respected for the vital work they do.

“Instead of this, we are armed only with the useless weapons of war. We cannot battle our way out of an pandemic with bombs and guns. The lies of ‘defence’ ring hollow now. We need what we have always needed, to love and care for one another, to work together as neighbours, as communities, as nations, and we need that more than we ever have before.”

Symon Hill, Campaigns Manager of the Peace Pledge Union (PPU), added:

“In this crisis, everyone needs support from others, some especially so. This costs money. The government can still divert funds away from multi-million pound weapons and NATO training exercises. Let’s fund things that will really help to make us safe. You can’t nuke a virus.”

(Thank you to Joe Yannielli, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

A crucial moment for women’s rights in Afghanistan

. WOMEN’S EQUALITY .

An article by Heather Barr in Human Rights Watch

This is a moment of both fear and hope for Afghan women — and an urgent time for the world to support their hard-won rights. The Feb. 29 deal between the US and the Taliban could pave the way for a peace that Afghans desperately seek. But there are huge risks for women’s rights in this process.


Women walk along a street in the old part of Kabul on February 29, 2020. Women across the country are nervous about losing their hard-won freedoms in the pursuit of peace.  © 2020 WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP via Getty Images

Women have suffered deeply during Afghanistan’s 40 years of war, and they desperately long for peace. They have also fought ferociously for equality in the years since the fall of the Taliban government and have made great progress. Today there are women ministers and governors and judges and police and soldiers, and Afghanistan’s parliament has a higher percentage of women than does the US Congress.

But Afghan women’s rights activists have faced resistance from the Afghan government — and lack of support from international donors — as they fought for their rightful place at the negotiating table for peace talks. This exclusion, combined with the Taliban’s relentless discrimination against women and girls, increases fears that women’s rights could easily be a casualty of this process.

The US-Taliban deal is focused on foreign troop withdrawal and preventing Taliban support for international terrorism attacks. It also triggers “intra-Afghan” talks between the Taliban, the Afghan government, and other factions, which are slated to start March 10. But women’s rights were not included in the Feb. 29 deal. Zalmay Khalilzad, the lead US envoy to the talks, repeatedly said that women’s rights — and other issues relating to human rights, political structures and power sharing — should be resolved through the subsequent intra-Afghan talks. This has been a source of frustration to activists.

The Taliban remain deeply misogynistic. Their 1996 to 2001 regime was notorious for denying women and girls access to education, employment, freedom of movement and health care, and subjecting them to violence including public lashing or execution by stoning. Taliban rhetoric and conduct has moderated somewhat in subsequent years, with some Taliban commanders permitting girls to attend primary schools, typically in response to community pressure. But the Taliban also continue to carry out violent attacks against girls’ schools and block women and girls from exercising many of their basic rights, and remain deeply opposed to gender equality.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article

Prospects for progress in women’s equality, what are the short and long term prospects?

Is peace possible in Afghanistan?

(Article continued from left column)

In February, a Taliban leader wrote, “[W]e together will find a way to build an Islamic system in which all Afghans have equal rights, where the rights of women that are granted by Islam — from the right to education to the right to work — are protected.” Skeptics noted the comma separating women from equal rights, and that from 1996 to 2001 the Taliban also argued that women were enjoying all rights “granted by Islam.”

The Afghan government has been an unreliable supporter — and sometimes even an enemy — of women’s rights. The administrations of both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani have frequently brushed aside women’s rights. Both have mostly rebuffed activists’ demands for women to have full participation in the peace process, as provided under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Foreign donors have been more willing to engage in photo ops and grant agreements than to expend political capital to press for Afghan women to be in the room, at the table, during negotiations.

Lack of clarity about the intra-Afghan talks and the designated negotiators has further heightened fears about the implications for women’s rights. Political infighting following the disputed Afghan presidential election has delayed the appointment of the government negotiation team. Pressure to divvy up these roles among power brokers threatens to squeeze women out. The absence of clear information about what country will host the talks and who will facilitate them prevents women’s rights activists from lobbying for including women.

A fight over whether a release of prisoners will move ahead is muddying the waters further and calling into question the timeline for the intra-Afghan talks. Meanwhile, violence, reduced ahead of the deal’s signing, threatens to escalate again.

Several years back it was common to hear Afghan feminists argue that there should be no negotiations with the Taliban — a group that refused to recognize women’s full humanity. Today those calls are all but gone. Even the staunchest women’s rights activists have mostly accepted that there is no path to peace in Afghanistan but through negotiations with the Taliban.

But protecting women’s rights needs to be one of the key objectives of this process, and for that to happen, women need to be at the negotiating table. Governments increasingly recognize that the role of women in peace processes is not just an afterthought, but critical to sustainable and implementable peace accords. The Afghan government and all its international partners need to back Afghan women, who are in the fight of their lives.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, South Asia, WOMEN'S EQUALITY,

The 2nd World March in Latin America with its message of Peace and Nonviolence

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Silvia Swinden from Pressenza (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.)

Whilst the world has been bursting with bad news (Trump’s failed impeachment, Bolsonaro’s assault on Brazil’s human rights and the Amazon, pipelines, climate change and failure of climate discussions in Madrid, Australian fires, the Brexit debacle, Bolivia coup and descent into tyranny, the coronavirus, etc) the Second World March for Peace and Nonviolence has continued its determined journey through the planet promoting a new culture of peace, human solidarity, freedom from oppression and meaning, all based on the methodology of nonviolence.. .

After leaving Africa https://www.pressenza.com/2019/10/the-2nd-world-march-for-peace-and-nonviolence-from-marrakesh-to-tenerife/  via Senegal (On October 27 and 28, the 2 World March was hosted in the city of Thies, Senegal), arriving in Saint-Louis, then visiting the villages of N’diadiane, in the region of M’bour – Thiès and Bandoulou, in the Kaolack region. On November 1 and 2, the West Africa stage of the 2 World ending in the Dakar area, with activities on the Island of Gorea and Pikine) the March entered Latin America via Mexico.

At the same the Genoa to Barcelona “Mediterranean Sea of Peace” initiative of the World March met the Peace Boat of the Hibakushas, Japanese survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs, The Peace Boat in Barcelona.

Mexico: Mexico City, San Cristobal and Guadalajara between the 8 and the November 15.

The stay in Mexico came to an end and continued to the next country. The Marchers went to the border with, Guatemala: different departments of the West paying tribute to the victims of the so-called ”War of Soccer“ between Honduras and El Salvador.

Given the serious circumstances that occurred in Bolivia, a call was made from the World March for the UN to intervene against the wave of racist violence in progress following the coup d’etat.

In Ecuador, a great Cavalcade for Peace was prepared and the Montubia de Guayas, Manabí and Los Ríos Integration Committees prepared for this great event. The Cedhu joined the March, organising events for December.

From El Salvador the Base Team continued on the American continent. From El Salvador it went to Honduras, from there to Cota Rica. Then, to Panama.

Honduras: on 25 / 11, International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, activists of the World March participated in the demonstrations of San José and Santa Cruz, Costa Rica.

Panama: at the Museum of Freedom, interviews in the media, at the Soka Gakkai International Panama Association (SGI).

On October 27 and 28, a forum was held in Costa Rica with the motto “THE GREAT TURN OF HUMANITY IS IN OUR HANDS”.

Students from three schools with a student from the Faculty of the UN came together in the Municipal Pavilion.

Four messengers of peace went to Ecuador representing the 2nd World March.

The World March Base Team visited Loja, their first activity was at the Gerald Coelho Convention Center.

32 national and foreign artists participated in this event for Peace and Nonviolence.

From there the March went to Colombia and Peru.

On December 1, the World March was present at the 13th Migrant March in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

The World March for Peace and Nonviolence: What is its history and its effects?

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

(continued from left column)

On December 26 and 27, the International Base Team participated in different activities in Córdoba, Argentina.

This December 28, the Base Team of the 2nd World March arrived in Mendoza, Argentina, being received at the Municipality. On December 29, the members of the World March Base Team arrived at the Punta de de Vacas Park, at the foot of Mount Aconcagua, in their last stage in Argentina after passing through Iguazu, Buenos Aires, Lomas de Zamora, Parque la Reja , Tucumán, Córdoba and Mendoza.

“Ten years ago in this same place, the Punta de Vacas Park, culminated the 1ª World March  which started in Wellington and after touring 97 countries for 93 days promoting peace and nonviolence as a methodology of action.

Today we are here after these ten years to pay tribute to the figure of Silo who inspired that 1st World March.

He supported an open and inclusive march that accommodated all the sensibilities of peace and nonviolence.

On that occasion the first objective of the World March was nuclear disarmament. Today we have to celebrate that we are closer to getting it. It is almost certain that in the coming months we can celebrate the “beginning of the end of nuclear weapons”.

From here we call on all citizens to promote this action because it affects us all.

Especially convincing the unbelievers, undecided and discouraged to support this just cause in favor of the human species: the end of nuclear weapons.

Silo pointed them out as the greatest threat to humanity.

At the moment there are important mobilizations in several countries of the world, and especially in Latin America.

Some result in social convulsions with tragic balances of violence.

Now it is necessary to remember the message that Silo gave from this place proposing the “overcoming of pain and suffering.”

Overcoming pain – he said – has to do with improving the living conditions of citizens without any exclusion. This is a great task pending.

He also spoke of overcoming suffering. This had to do with having coherence and finding meaning in life.

To do this what we think, feel and do must converge.

He also indicated the importance of dealing with others. He said it was necessary to learn to treat others as one would like to be treated.

He pointed to nonviolence as the only way to advance socially and personally. He pointed to active nonviolence as the most effective tool to open the future.

In this same place Silo recalled other great souls, prophets of nonviolence, which we will also remember when passing through their countries.

Make visible the methodology and proposals of Nonviolence

We hope that this World March will make visible the methodology and proposals of nonviolence.

May its echo travel through all corners and towns of this America.

That it touches its women and its men, but especially it is destined to its young people, to together design an America of the future and that it is the common house for all its inhabitants.

Thank you Silo for your teaching and for your example of life!”

The event culminated with a shared lunch where the Municipal Choir accompanied with delightful with beautiful songs.

Promoters of the March in Chile participated in the actions of civil disobedience and non-violent actions.

Extracts and pictures from the World March blog by Antonio Gancedo

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

UK: Oxford City Council says “no” to nuclear weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Rachel Cordery from Cherwell

Oxford City Council has called on the British Government to sign the International Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The resolution, proposed by Councillor John Tanner, was agreed “overwhelmingly” by the City Council on Monday [January 27].

Before backing the Treaty, the City Council want the UK government to renounce its use of nuclear weapons and end the renewal of Trident.

Cllr Tanner said: “Replacing Trident missiles is costing Britain a huge £205 billion, twice the cost of the high-speed rail line, HS2.

“Nuclear weapons are costly, outdated and ineffective. Most countries, including Ireland, Germany and Japan, manage perfectly well without them.”

“I’m thrilled that Oxford is backing this treaty to begin scrapping these weapons of mass-destruction. If there was ever a nuclear war the world would be plunged into perpetual winter and the survivors would all starve to death,” he added after the meeting.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Continued from left column)

Cllr Maryn Rush, who seconded the resolution, said: “I am concerned about the huge cost to the taxpayers of nuclear weapons, the risk posed by the regular transport of nuclear weapons on Oxfordshire’s roads and the continuing threat of nuclear war.”

Britain has four nuclear-armed submarines, each with eight missiles, each of which carries five independent nuclear warheads. Each warhead is eight times more destructive than the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Mr Nigel Day, representing Oxford’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), spoke to councillors before the resolution was debated. He said: “Trident warhead convoys regularly travel past Oxford on the A34, supporting the UK nuclear weapons system. We are that close to nuclear weapons.”

The resolution, which had been proposed in September 2019, focused on the City Council’s long-standing commitment to disarmament. It reads: “Oxford City Council has been a long-standing member of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) which has been working for over three decades to promote multilateral nuclear disarmament.

“Oxford City Council is particularly concerned about the huge cost to the taxpayer of nuclear weapons, the risk posed by the regular transport of nuclear weapons on Oxfordshire’s roads and the continuing threat of nuclear war.

“NFLA has worked with Mayors for Peace and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) to promote the International Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Over two thirds (122) of United Nations member states have agreed the TPNW.

“Council regrets that the Governments of the existing nuclear-weapon states, including the UK, refuse to support the Treaty. Council fully supports the TPNW as one of the most effective ways to bring about long-term and verifiable multilateral nuclear disarmament.”

With 122 nations supporting the treaty, Paris, Berlin, Sydney and Los Angeles are among the other cities supporting the TPNW. More locally, Manchester, Edinburgh and Norwich have passed similar resolutions to Oxford.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

ICAN cities appeal : Support from Mayors for Peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

excerpts from the websites of ICAN cities and Don’t Bank on the Bomb

The ICAN cities appeal has received the support of Mayors for Peace, a network of 7675 cities in 163 countries around the world that support the solidarity of cities towards the total abolition of Nuclear Weapons, and ICAN partner organisation.


Cities that have adopted the appeal (click on image to enlarge)

Since August of last year, Mayors for Peace have been working in various ways to encourage all States to ratify the Nuclear Ban Treaty, and their efforts largely inspired the ICAN Cities Appeal. And while Mayors for Peace deferred to the judgement of each individual member on what approach is most effective in its country or region to reach our common goal, Mayors for Peace representatives were instrumental in achieving the endorsements of the Cities Appeal in both Fremantle and Granollers. We are grateful for their support and eager to see what further collaboration will bring.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Continued from left column)

Cities across the planet are speaking up against nuclear weapons and calling on their governments to join the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Nuclear weapons put all our cities – and everything we love in them – at risk. A nuclear bomb detonated in a city would immediately kill tens of thousands of people, and tens of thousands more would suffer horrific injuries and later die from radiation exposure. And according to the International Committee for the Red Cross, no state or organization would be equipped to deal with the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear bomb.

Is your city not on the list and would you like to see them step up and speak out against nuclear weapons? Then ask them to! The process is different in each city, but it all comes down to getting in touch with your local authorities or elected representatives and urge them to endorse the Cities Appeal. You can also get social! All over the world, people are supporting the campaign by sharing pictures and stories of the places they love in their cities. Join them using #ICanSave.

The appeal states:

“Our city/town is deeply concerned about the grave threat that nuclear weapons pose to communities throughout the world. We firmly believe that our residents have the right to live in a world free from this Threat. Any use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental, would have catastrophic, far-reaching and long-lasting consequences for people and the environment. Therefore, we warmly welcome the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by the United Nations in 2017, and we call on our national government to join it.”

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Youth representatives speak out for Nuclear Disarmament at the NY City Hall

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Peace Boat

On January 28, 2020, Peace Boat US attended the NY City Council hearing at the City Hall to support two legislations about nuclear disarmament. Held by the Committee on Governmental Operations, the hearing focused on two legislations that were sponsored by City Council member Daniel Dromm. RES0976-2019 will encourage council members to divest the New York City pension funds from industries that support nuclear weapons technologies and development and INT 1621-2019 which will make New York City a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Passing these legislations would not only be a city-wide decision but will also serve as a role model for a nuclear-free world.


Peace Boat US interns holding the Nobel Peace Prize 2017 won by ICAN, along with SDGs and signs for a nuclear free world on the steps of New York City Hall.

Many organizations and activists gathered on the stairs in front of the New York City Hall for a press conference to raise awareness for nuclear disarmament. ICAN representative Ray Acheson displayed the Nobel Peace Prize, a sign of hope and motivation for the activists, while calling for the city to step against nuclear weapons. She voiced support for a City Council resolution urging Comptroller Scott Stringer to divest pension funds from companies involved in nukes. Acheson is a member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

Acheson and other community leaders decried investments detailed in a 2019 report from the International Disarmament Institute at Pace University, which found the city’s retirement funds have put $475 million in 19 “nuclear weapon producers.” The sum includes more than $180 million invested in Boeing and about $67 million in Honeywell International.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Continued from left column)

More than 60 people testified at the public hearing, including Peace Boat US Director Emilie McGlone and our youth delegation from Hollins University, sharing the testimonies of the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, encouraging Council Member Fernando Cabrera to announce his support for divestment from nuclear weapons producing companies. 

Participants at the hearing expressed their love of the city and strong unwillingness to see New York, or any other place on the Earth, to be exposed to the threat of irreversible destruction that nuclear weapons poses. Nuclear weapons not only eliminate the capacity of human self-defense and mutual aid, but they also create a genocidal level of injury. But so far, an outrageous amount of money is being invested in nuclear weapons instead of more immediate and pressing issues like poverty, health care, and climate change. Nuclear disarmament is a local, national and international issue and thus, in order to rid the world of nuclear weapons, we need actions from all levels, not just words. “It is the will of conscience of humanity,” to educate of truth and create real security that nuclear weapons are incapable of. 

Director Emilie McGlone spoke on behalf of Peace Boat US and shared information about the nuclear disarmament initiatives that Peace Boat has been organizing onboard and in the ports of call. Since 2008, Peace Boat has invited Hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to participate in the “Global Voyage for a Nuclear-Free World: Peace Boat Hibakusha Project.” This project is held annually onboard Peace Boat’s global voyages. As the average age of the Hibakusha is now more than 76 years old, the time remaining for them to directly share their experience and insights is very limited. 

The interns read testimonies on behalf of Hibakusha Shigeko Sasamori, Satsuko Thurlow, and Yasuaki Yamashita as well as activist Linda Chapman. The atomic bomb survivors’ testimonies described their personal experience and trauma suffered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and urged the New York city council and committee members to support the total abolition of nuclear weapons and its development. The interns felt honored to deliver this important message to the hearing at the City Hall. It was an insightful experience for them to be part of this powerful and pivotal process. 

This post was created and published by Chin Wai Wong, Irina Conc, Leena Gurung, and Sajila Kanwal.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

New York City hearings pave the way for nuclear weapons divestment

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Move the Nuclear Weapons Money

On Tuesday last week (January 28), New York City Council held public hearings on two measures (draft Resolution 0976 and Initiative 1621) which if adopted would oblige the city to divest its city pension funds from the nuclear weapons industry and establish an advisory committee to develop city action to further implement its status as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.


Video of hearing

The draft measures were introduced to the council in June 2019 by Council members Daniel Dromm, Helen Rosenthal and Ben Kallos. Since then, New York peace, climate and disarmament activists have been campaigning to build endorsement from enough council members for the adoption of these two measures.

They have been supported by Move the Nuclear Weapons Money, a global campaign to cut nuclear weapons budgets, end investments in the nuclear weapons and fossil fuel industries and reallocate these budgets and investments to support peace, climate and sustainable development. (Click here for the written testimony of Move the Nuclear Weapons Money).

The campaign has included directed research, lobbying of councillors, public events & actions, and open letters in support such as the Move the Nuclear Weapons Money Open letter to New York City Council endorsed by representatives of over 20 New York peace, disarmament and climate action organizations.

‘City of New York pension funds should not be used to support any aspect of nuclear weapons production, plain and simple,’ Councillor Helen Rosenthal told a support action organised by the Move the Nuclear Weapons Money campaign in front of City Hall in October 2019.

‘Helping to fund nuclear proliferation (whether directly via investments in weapons manufacturers, or indirectly via Citibank and other financial institutions with ties to weapons makers) runs contrary to what this city and our 300,000+ municipal workers stand for. Our teachers, fire fighters, social workers, and so many other public sector workers have devoted their careers to making life better for their fellow New Yorkers. We cannot in good conscience assist in underwriting the catastrophic loss of life and environmental ruin that would result from a nuclear conflict.’

Impact of NYC nuclear weapons divestment

New York City pensions have approximately $480 million invested in the nuclear weapons industry. The divestment of this amount would probably not make any financial impact on the weapons manufacturers.

However, it would serve as a positive example of an action that can be taken by cities and other investors to align their investments with their ethical values. And it would give support to federal initiatives to cut nuclear weapons budgets, such as the SANE Act introduced into the U.S. Senate by PNND Co-President Ed Markey and the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act, introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by PNND Member Eleanor Holmes-Norton.

The Hearings

The public hearings on Thursday were run jointly by Council member Daniel Dromm and Council member Fernando Cabrera, chair of the NYC Committee on Governmental Operations. They included testimony from a wide range of New Yorkers and civil society organisations, including from labour, education, academia, finance, health, religious and law sectors and from communities impacted by the production, testing and use of nuclear weapons. Witnesses stretched in age from 19-90. Click here for a video of the testimonies.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Continued from left column)

As the public hearings opened on Thursday, the two measures were one-vote short of a veto-proof majority. By the end of the hearings, Council Member Fernando Cabrera had affirmed his support thus ensuring the required votes for adoption. As such, it looks fairly certain that the measures will be adopted.

New York Administration resistance addressed by Move the Nuclear Weapons Money

One unresolved issue from the hearings is which city department would oversee the implementation of the two measures. Another issue is what resources, including budget, would be required for implementation and from where these would come.

The New York City administration was represented by Ms Penny Abeywardena, New York City’s Commissioner for International Affairs, who argued that her department (the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs) had neither the resources nor the mandate to implement the measures if they were adopted. She argued that her department was responsible for building good working relations between NY City and the United Nations, educating youth about the United Nations, and reporting to the UN on NYC’s implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, but not to engage in national security policy or international disarmament which was the mandate for the Federal government – not the city.

Mr Jonathan Granoff, representing Move the Nuclear Weapons Money, responded in his oral testimony that the remit from these resolutions was not that the City engage in advocacy at the United Nations, but rather to implement obligations arising from the UN that are applicable to cities as well as to federal governments. This is exactly what her department is doing with respect to SDGs, and is what they have a mandate to do for nuclear disarmament.

‘The very first resolution of the United Nations, which was adopted by consensus, affirmed a universal commitment to abolish atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and this is further affirmed as an obligation in the Non-Proliferation Treaty ,’ said Mr Granoff, who is also President of Global Security Institute and an internationally respected lawyer.

Ms Abeywardena, in outlining her department’s commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, seems to be unaware that SDG 16 includes the obligation to implement such international law at all levels of government, including at city level. As such, the Commission on International Affairs does indeed have the mandate to implement these measures if and when they are adopted.’

With regard to the human resources required to implement the measures, Mr Granoff agreed with Ms Abeywardena that her commission and the City Council did not have much expertise on nuclear weapons. ‘This is exactly why an advisory committee is required – to provide that expertise, and that expertise is here in this room, and you can have our expertise for free. The only resource standing in the way of getting rid of nuclear weapons is emotional, spiritual and political will.’

Click here for the oral testimony of Mr Granoff.

Click here for the written testimony of Move the Nuclear Weapons Money, which includes experience of nuclear weapons divestment by cities, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and other investors from around the world.

New York City and Mayors for Peace

The written testimony of Move the Nuclear Weapons Money included a proposal that a key action New York City should take in implementing the resolutions once adopted would be for them to join Mayors for Peace.
Jackie Cabassso, North America Representative for Mayors for Peace, in her oral testimony outlined some of the actions of Mayors for Peace – including introduction of nuclear disarmament resolutions that were adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Ms Cabasso reminded the City Council of the invitation from Mayors for Peace to New York to join, and urged she that they do so.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Doomsday Clock Moves to 100 Seconds Before Midnight Due to Threats of Nuclear War and Climate Change

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Olivia Rosane in Ecowatch

The Doomsday Clock is now 100 seconds to midnight, partly because of the climate crisis.

That’s the closest the clock has moved to the apocalypse since it was first started in 1947 to warn of the dangers of nuclear war, BBC News reported.


“It is 100 seconds to midnight. We are now expressing how close the world is to catastrophe in seconds – not hours, or even minutes,” President and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Rachel Bronson said in a press release announcing the time change Thursday. “It is the closest to Doomsday we have ever been in the history of the Doomsday Clock. We now face a true emergency – an absolutely unacceptable state of world affairs that has eliminated any margin for error or further delay.”

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear bomb, according to NPR. It has 13 Nobel laureates on its board, which determines how close humanity is to annihilation each year, using the Doomsday Clock to raise awareness of global threats. This year, they were joined in the decision by the Elders, a group of world leaders founded by Nelson Mandela who work independently for peace and human rights, according to the press release.

“The Doomsday Clock is a globally recognized indicator of the vulnerability of our existence,” Elder and former Irish President Mary Robinson said at the annual clock-unveiling ceremony, as NPR reported. “It’s a striking metaphor for the precarious state of the world, but most frighteningly, it’s a metaphor backed by rigorous scientific scrutiny.”

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

The two groups made their decision to move the clock closer to the zero hour based on the two threats of nuclear war and climate change, compounded by the rise of false information online and the refusal of world leaders to act on these critical issues.

“Civilization-ending nuclear war — whether started by design, blunder, or simple miscommunication — is a genuine possibility. Climate change that could devastate the planet is undeniably happening. And for a variety of reasons that include a corrupted and manipulated media environment, democratic governments and other institutions that should be working to address these threats have failed to rise to the challenge,” the bulletin wrote in a statement explaining its decision.

On the nuclear front, the group cited several concerning foreign policy developments. These included increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran, which has continued to stockpile uranium after the U.S. pulled out of a nuclear deal. The group also mentioned the official end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which has led the U.S. and Russia to begin developing previously banned weapons.

When speaking of climate change, the group called out the government of the U.S. for withdrawing from the Paris agreement and the government of Brazil for weakening protections for the Amazon rainforest. But it also spoke of the general failures of world leaders to make any significant progress at either September’s UN Climate Action Summit or December’s COP25 in Madrid.

The Doomsday Clock was set to two minutes to midnight in 2018 for the first time since 1953, when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union tested hydrogen bombs. In 2019, the clock stayed at two minutes, but this year the bulletin decided to move it forward even further.

The group did say that there were things world leaders and citizens could do to move the clock backwards again. When it comes to the environment, they recommended that world leaders recommit themselves to the goals of the Paris agreement and that U.S. citizens pressure their government to acknowledge climate change and to act to address it.

“We ask world leaders to join us in 2020 as we work to pull humanity back from the brink,” Robinson said in the press release. “The Doomsday Clock now stands at 100 seconds to midnight, the most dangerous situation that humanity has ever faced. Now is the time to come together – to unite and to act.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

USA: Why Is Trump the Only Candidate With a Budget Proposal?

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by David Swanson

An important job of any U.S. president is to propose an annual budget to Congress. Shouldn’t it be a basic job of every presidential candidate to propose one to the public? Isn’t a budget a critical moral and political document outlining what chunk of our public treasury should go to education or environmental protection or war?

The basic outline of such a budget could consist of a list or a pie chart communicating — in dollar amounts and/or percentages — how much government spending ought to go where. It’s shocking to me that presidential candidates do not produce these.

As far as I have been able to determine, though it’s so absurd as to seem improbable, no non-incumbent candidate for U.S. president has ever produced even the roughest outline of a proposed budget, and no debate moderator or major media outlet has ever publicly asked for one.

There are candidates right now who propose major changes to education, healthcare, environmental, and military spending. The numbers, however, remain vague and disconnected. How much, or what percentage, do they want to spend where?

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Some candidates might like to produce a revenue / taxation plan as well. “Where will you raise money?” is as important a question as “Where will you spend money?” But “Where will you spend money?” seems like a basic question that any candidate should be asked.

The U.S. Treasury distinguishes three types of U.S. government spending. The largest is mandatory spending. This is made up largely of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but also Veterans’ care and other items. The smallest of the three types is interest on debt. In between is the category called discretionary spending. This is the spending that the Congress decides how to spend each year.

What every presidential candidate ought to produce, at a minimum, is a basic outline of a federal discretionary budget. This would serve as a preview of what each candidate would ask the Congress for as president. If candidates feel they need to produce larger budgets outlining changes to mandatory spending as well, so much the better.

President Trump is the one candidate for president in 2020 who has produced a budget proposal (one for each year he’s been in office). As analyzed by the National Priorities Project, Trump’s latest budget proposal devoted 57% of discretionary spending to militarism (wars and war preparations). This is despite the fact that this analysis treated Homeland Security, Energy (the Energy Department is largely nuclear weapons), and Veterans Affairs each as separate categories not included under the category of militarism.

The U.S. public, in polling over the years, has tended to have no idea what the budget looks like, and — once informed — to favor a very different budget from the actual one at the time. I’m curious what each person campaigning for the presidency wants the federal budget to look like. Will they put their money (well, our money) where their mouths are? They say they care about many good things, but will they show us how much they care about each of them?

I strongly suspect that most people would recognize the significant differences, and have strong opinions about them, if we were shown a basic pie-chart of spending priorities from each candidate.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

USA: Following Iran Strike, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Score Huge Defense Contracts

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Peter Castagno in Citizen Truth (All Citizen Truth original articles licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. )

Defense companies Lockheed Martin and Raytheon scored huge Pentagon contracts in anticipation of military conflict with Iran following the Trump administration’s assassination of Iran’s most powerful general late Thursday. Lockheed won a $1.93 billion contract to expand production of the controversial F-35 fighter jet program and Raytheon gained a $758 million deal to manufacture advanced medium-range air to air missiles (AMRAAM).

Defense stocks have soared in recent days as investors have expressed excitement at the prospect of greater violence in the Middle East:

“Big-name defense stocks are rising, with Northrop Grumman leading the rally last Friday. Northrop has risen 8% in the last five days, while Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have jumped around 4% and 2%, respectively,” reported Forbes Monday.

“The S&P 500 Aerospace & Defense (Industry) Index rose 3.7%, while the Dow Jones U.S. Aerospace & Defense Index went up 3.6% in the past five trading sessions,” as per Nasdaq on Tuesday.

General Dynamics also scored a $98 million contract to work on docking phased maintenance with the Naval Sea Systems Command.

Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, notes that because top defense executives receive stock-based pay, they are already reaping a windfall from Trump’s military strike.
‘The Game Has Changed’

Amid escalating tensions with Iran, the US is deploying roughly 4,500 soldiers, as well as a wide array of ships, planes and other weapons to the Middle East.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who was Raytheon’s top lobbyist for seven years, said that “the game has changed” shortly before President Trump’s assassination of a top Iranian general on Thursday, which marked the first time the U.S. killed a top foreign military leader since World War II. Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi said that Soleimani was in Iraq by his invitation in an effort to deescalate tensions with Saudi Arabia.

The Iraqi parliament has since voted to expel U.S. forces from the country, which Trump responded to with threats of “very big” sanctions “like they’ve never seen before, ever.” Trump also threatened Iran with retaliation “perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” including destruction of cultural sites if the country takes military action, a threat the Pentagon has contradicted. The president has previously spoken of his support for torture and “taking out” the families of terrorists, all while civilian deaths abroad have sharply increased during his presidency.

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the assassination was to prevent an imminent attack on U.S. forces planned by the general, but provided no evidence for his claim, and other officials have offered divergent accounts. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Pompeo had been pushing the move for months.
Economist Dean Baker noted that some defense stocks suspiciously surged before the attack:

Revolving Door

As Citizen Truth wrote earlier this week, critics argue that the revolving door between private defense contractors and the Pentagon improperly influences public policy to benefit private weapons manufacturers:

“In November 2018, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) released an analysis of the Trump administration’s defense sector, finding 645 instances of federal employees working for the top 20 Pentagon contractors in fiscal year 2016. Most of them worked as lobbyists, where they used public funds allocated to them through Pentagon contracts to vouch for policies that would help their private employers profit.”

U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Mark Esper spent seven years as the top lobbyist at Raytheon, refused to recuse himself from decisions involving his former employer, and has refused to wait before returning to Raytheon after his public service. U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy is a former Lockheed Martin executive.

Former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, who resigned in 2019, was ranked by the nonprofit government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the “most corrupt members of Congress” for her work with Lockheed Martin. In 2015, Lockheed Martin paid a $4.7 million settlement to the Department of Justice after the revelation it had used taxpayer funds to hire lobbyists, including Wilson, for a $2.4 billion contract.

Critics argue that proponents of military action should disclose their ties to the arms industry. Beyond the numerous Pentagon officials connected to weapons manufacturers, many congressmembers are supported by companies like Lockheed Martin and hold stock in the defense industry. As Lee Fang reported Monday night, multiple pundits who have praised the recent assassination neglected to reveal their financial interests in the arms corporations preparing for war.

Defense Spending

The Intercept’s Lee Fang reported last year that Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson said that “bipartisan support for defense spending,” favored her company, in addition to geopolitical tensions with countries like Iran.

House Democrats approved a $738 billion military package last month, even as it was stripped of amendments that would have forbidden the president from starting wars without congressional approval. Congress approved the colossal spending package a week after the Afghanistan papers were published, revealing how the U.S. government systematically deceived the public about the war in Afghanistan for 18 years.

In October, an Ex-Pentagon official said he was fired for speaking out about defense companies ripping off taxpayers. A 2016 Politico profile described the official, Shay Assad, as “the most hated man in the Pentagon.”

“Traditionally, defense stocks tend to outperform the market during periods of budget growth,” reported CCN. A CNBC analysis found that “shares of defense companies outperform the broader market in the six months after a crisis event in the Middle East.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America