Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

France: For an Emergency Plan to Overcome the Crisis

… DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY …

A declaration of the Groupe parlementaire La France insoumise -NUPES & La France insoumise (translation by CPNN)

The death of young Nahel on the morning of June 27 in Nanterre triggered a wave of emotion and anger in the country. It has also acted as a spark, triggering a revolt in many cities across the country, which urgently demands a political response.

Faced with this situation, the government has locked itself into an escalation of verbal security that only serves to worsen the situation. They shirk their own responsibility and target rebellious France to hide their incompetence and inability to act. At the same time, they give up looking for a way out of the crisis, and they abandon the victims of damage to public property, housing and businesses essential to daily life.

We advocate no strategy of violence, but we demand that the causes of the situation be addressed because the problems are not new. For working-class neighborhoods, racism, police violence or discrimination in access to employment or housing are the daily lot of the inhabitants. The destruction of public services, social protections and associative solidarity, due to neoliberal austerity policies, has been going on for decades. For there to be harmony, strong actions are needed on the part of the government which, today as yesterday, are absent. Since the revolts of 2005, there has been no response.

(Article continued in right column)

(click here for the original French version)

Question for this article:

Where are police being trained in culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

Restoring trust is all the more difficult since the government has distinguished itself in recent years by its inability to deal with popular demands by any means other than contempt and ignorance, whether during the mobilization of yellow vests or against retirement at 64. They make it seem like no change is possible within the current framework. Therefore what is required is a complete break and exceptional responses.

For this, we request a debate in the National Assembly under Article 50-1 of the Constitution in order to propose an emergency plan including:

* The immediate repeal of the “license to kill” provisions of the Cazeneuve law of 2017, responsible for the explosion of deaths when the subject refuses to comply

* The creation of a “Truth and Justice” commission to establish all responsibilities concerning police violence that has resulted in the death or mutilation of citizens

* The immediate expatriation of any case of police violence, the complete reform of the IGPN and the creation of an independent investigation service.

* State support for repairs to shops, housing and public places that have damaged in recent days

* An in-depth reform of the national police to rebuild a better trained republican police and to get rid of all forms of racism, including in particular the dissolution of the BAC, the restoration of the code of ethics of 1986, the strengthening of training, the introduction of genuine community policing and the end of lethal immobilization techniques. We must close the period started by Sarkozy in 2002 that treats young people from working-class neighborhoods as an enemy from within.

* A global action program against discrimination including in particular the creation of a Commissioner for Equality, specialized centers within the courts of appeal and the implementation of the identity check receipt to fight against the face control

* A public investment plan in poor neighborhoods for the restoration of public services, housing, public schools, access to health and culture, financing of associations and social centers

The Trillion Dollar Silencer: Why There Is So Little Anti-War Protest in the United States

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A book by Joan Roelofs on sale by Clarity Press.

The Trillion Dollar Silencer investigates the astounding lack of popular protest at the death and destruction that the military industrial complex is inflicting on people, nations, and the environment, and its budget-draining costs. Where is the antiwar protest by progressives, libertarians, environmentalists, civil rights advocates, academics, clergy, community volunteers, artists, et al? This book focuses on how military largesse infests such public sectors’ interests.

Contractors and bases serve as the economic hubs of their regions. State and local governments are intertwined with the DoD; some states have Military Departments. National Guard annual subsidies are large. Joint projects include aid to state environmental departments for restoration, and government-environmental organization teams to create buffer zones for bombing ranges. Economic development commissions aim to attract military industries and keep the existing bases and corporations. Veterans Administration hospitals are boons to their communities.

Universities, colleges, and faculty get contracts and grants from the DoD and its agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Minerva Initiative. Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs are subsidized by the DoD. Civilian jobs in the DoD provide opportunities for scientists, engineers, policy analysts, and others.

Every kind of business and nonprofit, including environmental and charitable organizations like The Nature Conservancy and Goodwill Industries feeds at the DoD trough via contracts and grants.

Individuals, arts institutions, charities, churches, and universities succumb to the profitability of military-related investments. Pension funds of public and private employees are replete with military stocks.

Philanthropy is another silencer. The DoD itself donates equipment to organizations, especially those of youth, and lends equipped battalions to Hollywood. The weapons firms give generously to the arts and charities, heavily to youth and minorities. They also initiate joint programs such as providing tutors and mentors for robotics teams in public schools.

Our militarized economy is destructive and wasteful. How can we replace the multitude of dependencies on military funding and restore the boundary between it and civil society? Surely a first step is to see how military spending results in the complicity of civil society in its pernicious outcomes. That is what this book tries to reveal.

* * *

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
The peace movement in the United States, What are its strengths and weaknesses?

(Continued from left column)

Reviewer comments

“It is perhaps the most fraught question of our time, whatever happened to the anti-war movement? In this provocative and illuminating book, Joan Roelofs penetrates deep into the inner-workings of the vast political economy of war-making, revealing how the arms cartel has consolidated its power, captured our political system, infiltrated the media and stifled dissent. At a perilous moment in history, Roelofs has given us a call to action, loud and clear enough to awaken our anesthetized consciences.” JEFFREY ST CLAIR, Editor of CounterPunch, Author, Grand Theft Pentagon

“The Trillion Dollar Silencer is a masterful primer on an institution – the United States military — that has literally thousands of facets and functions, and about a thousand billion dollars each year to support its role in preparing for and making war around the world. Rich in explanatory images, charts and maps, the pieces of the puzzle that Joan Roelofs identifies are so many and so complex that even the most informed readers will learn something in every chapter. The book’s central question is how the military industrial complex has been able to acquire so many taxpayer dollars year after year and so much cultural assent to its overwrought, violent mission. The answers she gives will help us to reverse our otherwise continuing deadly and expensive course.” CATHARINE LUTZ, Professor Emerita of Anthropology and International Studies, Co-Director, Costs of War Project, Brown University

“The world’s leading weapons dealer and warmaker, the United States, may also have the least popular resistance to militarism. Why the quiet acceptance? This book helps us to become aware that darn near every inch of U.S. society has been infiltrated by the normalization or celebration of war preparations, that essentially our culture, not just our elected officials, has been bought. This book also provides guidance on what we can do about it.” DAVID SWANSON, Executive Director of World Beyond War and author of War Is A Lie

“Why is there so much acceptance of, and so little protest against, our war policies and all the other tactics of subversion employed by the military-intelligence-industrial complex to sustain hegemony. While the peace movement answers this question with reference to propaganda, fear and distractions, this book focuses on the enormity of the war machine’s penetration into numerous aspects of civilian life. The sections in the book on this penetration into philanthropy, nonprofit organizations and NGO’s are probably the most eye-popping portions of the book. Roelofs shows that the real goal is the construction of “the normal” in ways functional to the interests of the Pentagon, unconventional warfare institutions and military contractors.” PAUL SHANNON, Executive Committee of Mass[achusetts] Peace Action

“Now is exactly the right time for her highly recommended book.” W.T. WHITNEY, Counterpunch

“…for individuals and collectives who are already politically initiated and opposed to the US imperialist war machine, the present book would be of immense help to widen the cracks of this mighty system…” MANALI CHAKRABARTI, Research Unit for Political Economy, India

(Editor’s note: It has been called to our attention that another article published at this time describes a report on how American military contracts to so-called “think tanks” are able to inject their propaganda into the mass media. The article is Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine. The report shows that Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023 quotes 33 think tanks, all but one of which receive military funding.)

Brasilia summit: Lula and Maduro reboot regional integration

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Morning Star Online

Brazil’s President Lula invited all 13 presidents from South America to a summit on May 30 aimed at developing a collective and “common vision and relaunching decisive actions for sustainable development, peace and the well-being of our peoples.”


(Click on image to enlarge)

Lula presented 10 proposals to bring about the region’s rapprochement — a consensual approach to economic, social and cultural issues.

Peru’s de facto ruler Dina Boluarte was not present because Peru’s right-wing congress did not authorise her to attend.

Among the proposals, Lula put forward the undertaking of regional investments to assist social and economic developments, mobilising the resources of banks such as Bank of the South, a development bank set up by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (Fonplata) and the Venezuelan Economic and Social Development Bank (Bandes).

Lula also made a strong pitch for deepening South American independence and sovereignty in monetary matters through compensation mechanisms and the creation of a common reference currency for trade to reduce the region’s dependence on currencies such as the dollar.

He stressed the need to collaborate at the level of regional planning for which he asked for the updating of the South American Council for Infrastructure and Planning (Cosiplan), emphasising physical and digital integration.

He also stressed the need to reactivate regional co-operation on health, especially on vaccination and health infrastructure.

He went on to focus on regional collaboration in two key strategic areas, energy and defence. The South American nations had already established the Defence Council of the South (Codesur), which due to the US reactionary counteroffensive that led to right-wing governments coming into office in the region between 2009 and 2019, had not been functioning. 

Collaboration on the former, given that many South American countries are oil producers would enormously enhance the region’s economic muscle and bargaining position at the international level, especially in the current world geopolitical climate.

Lula proposed to create a high-level structure made up of representatives of all involved presidents to relaunch a renewed regional integration process in South America, stressing the urgency of these tasks — something enthusiastically echoed by Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

During the summit, President Maduro held meetings with various presidents aimed at strengthening strategic bilateral ties with those nations to consolidate paths of co-operation and integration.

Presidents Maduro and Lula met at Brazil’s presidential palace where they celebrated the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, including the reopening of embassies after four years of Brazil’s total break with Venezuela carried out by extreme right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro.

A memorandum of understanding on agri-food matters was signed by representatives from both countries aimed at strengthening exchanges on livestock, food sovereignty and security.

Furthermore, Lula and Maduro discussed the possibility of Venezuela joining the Brics coalition (made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which Lula strongly supports, opening the possibility of the two countries making use of the common currency Brics intends to issue.

Maduro also held a meeting with Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro at Itamaraty, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations, that resulted in the signing of the Agreement for the Creation of the Neighbourhood and Integration Commission to co-ordinate co-operation on their extensive common border.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Latin America, has it taken the lead in the struggle for a culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

The border has been the favourite area of operations for narco-trafficking paramilitaries as well as a base for Colombia-sponsored paramilitary and other operations against Venezuela.

President Petro has become a key figure in the dialogue persistently advocated by President Maduro between Caracas and the far-right opposition in Venezuela.

Petro organised an international conference on Venezuela, held in Bogota, to encourage talks between them.

Maduro also met Bolivia’s President Luis Arce, also at Itamaraty, seeking to strengthen strategic ties between the two nations. While Venezuela is rich in oil resources, Bolivia is rich in natural gas.

The meeting took place within the framework of 13 co-operation agreements signed last April between the two presidents as part of the Venezuela-Bolivia Joint Integration Commission.

Following Lula and Maduro’s encouragement to strengthen Unasur, Petro announced Colombia’s re-entry into the regional organisation.

Perhaps most significantly, Lula vindicated the political legitimacy of the Maduro government: at a joint press conference with Maduro, Brazil’s president expressed joy in saying “Venezuela is back!”

He stressed that Venezuela is a democracy and any view to the contrary is the result of a false “political narrative” of “authoritarianism and anti-democracy” from the enemies of Venezuela.

He added: “I have argued a lot with European social democrats who defend democracy and do not understand that Venezuela is a democracy.”

Lula went further to state that it is incredible that the nation has been inflicted by over 900 sanctions because the US does not like it.

He went on to say that to deny Maduro was the president of Venezuela, and to recognise Juan Guaido instead, was the “most absurd thing in the world.”

Lula also expressed a strong wish that Venezuela goes back to being a fully sovereign nation where “only its people through a free vote, decide who will govern the nation.”

In stark contrast to “civilised” Europe, Paraguay’s recently elected president, Santiago Pena, a rightwinger, in an interview with the BBC declared: “There is only one president in Venezuela and his name is Nicolas Maduro.”

On the 31 tons of Venezuelan gold held in the Bank of England, Lula was unequivocal: “That gold reserve, instead of being placed under the custody of Guaido, must be placed in the custody of the Venezuelan government.”

Lula added that Brazil’s relationship with Venezuela should not just be commercial; it needs to be political, cultural, economic and technological.

He said this could be around university partnerships and even their armed forces, working together in their common border “to combat narco-trafficking.”

Lula’s proposal for Venezuela to join the Brics coalition and Venezuela’s enthusiastic willingness to do so was instantly welcomed by China and Russia.

This is in the context of Brazil’s former president Dilma Rousseff, who was deposed by convoluted right-wing machinations in 2016, being appointed president of the Brics New Development Bank.

With Lula’s summit, South America’s regional integration has taken a qualitative leap forward. It confronts serious complexities in the neoliberal legacy left by the right-wing administrations which wrecked several national economies in a very short period.

Washington’s policy combines heavy-handed interventionism to bring about regime change, especially against Venezuela, with a “divide and rule” policy that was successful in bringing the likes of Bolsonaro, Mauricio Macri, Ivan Duque, and many other right-wing leaders to power.

The summit is a strong reaffirmation of the region’s collective sovereignty — all factors of enormous strategic significance. It is also a victory for multipolarity, and objectively a substantial setback for the US and its accomplices.

Lula meets the Pope, talks world peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Prensa Latina

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Wednesday (June 21) met Pope Francis in the Vatican for 45 minutes and the two discussed world peace, along with other matters.

The Brazilian leader thanked the Pope on social media for the audience and for the “good conversation about peace in the world.”

The behind-doors meeting took place in the Vatican close to the residence of the Pope, who recently underwent surgery for hernia.

The meeting was followed by the Brazilian delegation meeting the Pope and the traditional exchange of gifts.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

Lula, who had received a letter from the Argentine-origin Pope while in prison, gifted him a print of the painting Sagrada Familia by Pernambuco-based artist JF Borges.

On his part, Francis presented Lula with his 2023 Message of Peace, the document on human brotherhood and the book on Statio Orbis from Mar. 27, 2020, when he had prayed for the end of the pandemic at a deserted St Peter’s Square.

Lula invited the pontiff to make another visit to Brazil – as his first international visit as Pope had been to Rio de Janeiro in July 2013 – and attend the festival honoring Our Lady of Nazareth in October.

The Brazilian president’s office had already announced that he intended to discuss the fight against hunger with the Pope along with other issues such as his initiative to end the Ukraine war.

Lula has proposed forming a group of countries to mediate in possible negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, although his proposal has elicited little response from the international community.

The Brazilian leader arrived in the Vatican in a convoy of around 15 official cars along with the first lady, and was received at the doors of the Paul VI audience hall by the Pope’s aide, Leonardo Sapienza.

After his Vatican visit, Lula is set to meet Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Wednesday evening at her official residence and seat of power, the Chigi Palace in Rome.

He will also meet Rome’s mayor Roberto Gualtieri, an old friend who had met Lula in prison while he was behind bars on corruption charges that were later revoked by the judiciary. On Thursday, the Brazilian president will fly to Paris for the next stop of his Europe tour.

2023 United Nations Resolution on the Culture of Peace

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

Data from UN document of A/77/L.74 and Meeting coverage of 79th Meeting of GA 77th Session

The UN General Assembly adopted without a vote this year’s resolution for the culture of peace, presented as usual by the delegation of Bangladesh.

The resolution was sponsored by the following countries: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, India, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Mauritania, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu and Venezuela.


Photo from BNN

Following 40 preambular paragraphs which among other things recognized “the importance of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 1999,” the resolution included the following 21 operative paragraphs:

1. Reiterates that the objective of the effective implementation of the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace is to strengthen further the global movement for a culture of peace, and calls upon all concerned to renew their attention to this objective;

2. Invites Member States to continue to place greater emphasis on and expand their activities promoting a culture of peace at the national, regional and international levels and to ensure that peace and non-violence are fostered at all levels;

3. Invites the entities of the United Nations system, within their existing mandates, to integrate, as appropriate, the eight action areas of the Programme of Action into their programmes of activities, focusing on promoting a culture of peace and non-violence at the national, regional and international levels;

4. Commends the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for strengthening efforts to mobilize all relevant stakeholders within and outside the United Nations system in support of a culture of peace, and invites the Organization to continue to enhance communication and outreach, including through the culture of peace website;

5. Commends the practical initiatives and actions by relevant United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) and the University for Peace, as well as their activities in further promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, in particular the promotion of peace education and activities related to specific areas identified in the Programme of Action, and encourages them to continue and further strengthen and expand their efforts;

6. Stresses the importance of addressing the underlying drivers of violence and conflict to promote a culture of peace;

7. Encourages Member States, United Nations entities and other relevant actors to adopt a holistic approach to the cross-cutting dimensions of peace, development, humanitarian action and human rights in order to prevent the recurrence of conflict and build lasting peace;

8. Underlines that early childhood development contributes to the development of more peaceful societies through advancing equality, tolerance, human development and promoting human rights, and calls for investment in early childhood education, including through effective policies and practices, towards promoting a culture of peace;

(Article continued in right column)

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

Question for this article:

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

(Article continued from left column)

9. Encourages Member States, United Nations entities, regional and subregional organizations and relevant actors to consider instituting mechanisms to involve youth in the promotion of a culture of peace, tolerance and intercultural and interreligious dialogue and develop, as appropriate, an understanding of respect for human dignity, pluralism and diversity, including, as appropriate, through education programmes, that could discourage their participation in acts of terrorism, violent extremism as and when conducive to terrorism, violence, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination;

10. Encourages the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations to increase its activities that focus on peace education and global citizenship education in order to enhance an understanding among young people of values such as peace, tolerance, openness, inclusion and mutual respect, which are essential in developing a culture of peace;

11. Encourages the United Nations peacebuilding architecture to continue to promote peacebuilding and sustaining peace activities, as outlined in its resolutions 72/276 and 75/201, and to advance a culture of peace and non-violence in postconflict peacebuilding efforts at the country level, and recognizes the important role of the Peacebuilding Commission in this regard;

12. Emphasizes the critical importance of an inclusive, resilient and sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and in this regard calls upon States to promote the values of a culture of peace, inter alia, in countering rising inequalities, discrimination, exclusion, hate crimes and violence;

13. Urges the appropriate authorities to provide age-appropriate education in children’s schools that builds a culture of peace and non-violence, including lessons in mutual understanding, respect, tolerance, active and global citizenship and human rights;

14. Encourages the involvement of media, especially the mass media, in promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, with particular regard to children and young people;

15. Commends civil society, non-governmental organizations and young people for their activities in further promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, including through their campaign to raise awareness on a culture of peace and the peaceful settlement of disputes;

16. Encourages civil society and non-governmental organizations to further strengthen their efforts to promote a culture of peace, inter alia, by adopting their own programme of activities to complement the initiatives of Member States, the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, in line with the Declaration and Programme of Action;

17. Invites Member States, all entities of the United Nations system and civil society organizations to accord increasing attention to their observance of the International Day of Peace on 21 September each year as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence, in accordance with its resolution 55/282 of 7 September 2001, and of the International Day of Non-Violence on 2 October, in accordance with its resolution 61/271 of 15 June 2007;

18. Requests the President of the General Assembly to consider convening a high-level forum, as appropriate and within existing resources, devoted to the implementation of the Programme of Action on the occasion of the anniversary of its adoption, on or around 13 September, and requests the Secretariat to provide required logistical support for its effective organization within their respective mandates and existing resources;

19. Invites the Secretary-General, within existing resources, in consultation with the Member States and taking into account the observations of civil society organizations, to explore mechanisms and strategies, in particular strategies in the sphere of information and communications technology, for the implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action and to initiate outreach efforts to increase global awareness of the Programme of Action and its eight areas of action aimed at their implementation, including through public information activities by the Department of Global Communications of the Secretariat;

20. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its seventy-ninth session a report, within existing resources, on actions taken by Member States, on the basis of information provided by them, and those taken system-wide by all concerned entities of the United Nations to implement the present resolution;

21. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its seventy-eighth session the item entitled “Culture of peace”.

Following the presentation by Bangladesh, the resolution was welcomed by Brunei Darussalam, speaking for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), by Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, by Barbados, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Other speakers were from Syria, Malaysia, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Equatorial Guinea and Iran, and an exchange of criticisms between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Vienna’s International Summit for Peace in Ukraine Issues a Global Call for Action

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Medea Benjamin published by Code Pink

During the  weekend of June 10-11 in Vienna, Austria, over 300 people representing peace organizations from 32 countries came together for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine to demand an end to the fighting. In a formal conference declaration, participants declared, “We are a broad and politically diverse coalition that represents peace movements and civil society. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and there is no military solution to the current crisis.” (See CPNN June 12 for full text.)

To amplify their call for a ceasefire, Summit participants committed themselves to organizing Global Weeks of Action–protests, street vigils and political lobbying–during the days of September 30-October 8.

Summit organizers chose Austria as the location of the peace conference because  Austria is one of only a few neutral non-NATO states left in Europe. Ireland, Switzerland and Malta are a mere handful of neutral European states, now that previously neutral states Finland has joined NATO and Sweden is next in line. Austria’s capital, Vienna, is known as “UN City,” and is also home to the Secretariat of the OSCE (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which monitored the ceasefire in the Donbas from the signing of the Minsk II agreement in 2015 until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 

Surprisingly, neutral Austria turned out to be quite hostile to the Peace Summit. The union federation caved in to pressure from the Ukrainian Ambassador to Austria and other detractors, who smeared the events as a fifth column for the Russian invaders. The ambassador had objected to some of the speakers, including world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs and European Union Parliament member Clare Daly. (See CPNN June 9 for details.)

Even the press club, where the final press conference was scheduled, canceled at the last minute. The Austrian liberal/left newspaper Der Standard piled on, panning the conference both beforehand, during and afterwards, alleging that the speakers were too pro-Russian. Undaunted, local organizers quickly found other locations.The conference took place in a lovely concert center, and the press conference in a local cafe. 

The most moving panel of the conference was the one with representatives from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, who risked their lives to participate in the Summit. Yurii Sheliazhenko, secretary treasurer of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, is unable to leave the country and therefore spoke to attendees from Kyiv via Zoom. 

“Like many Ukrainians, I am a victim of aggression of Russian army, which bombs my city, and a victim of human rights violations by the Ukrainian army, which tries to drag me to the meat grinder, denying my right to refuse to kill, to leave the country for my studies in University of Münster … Think about it: all men from 18 to 60 are prohibited from leaving the country, they are hunted on the streets and forcibly abducted to the army’s serfdom.” 

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

Sheliazhenko told the Summit that the Armed Forces of Ukraine had tried to deny conscientious objector status to Ukrainian war resisters, but relented when international pressure demanded that the Ukrainian military recognize rights secured under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Several groups at the Summit pledged to provide support for conscientious objectors from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, and also took up a collection for Ukrainian families lacking access to clean water following the recent destruction of the Kakhovka dam. 

Highlights of the Summit also included remarks by representatives from the Global South, who came from China, Cameroon, Ghana, Mexico and Bolivia. Bolivia’s Vice President  David Choquehuanca inspired the crowd as he spoke of the need to heed the wisdom of indigenous cultures and their mediation practices. 

Many speakers said the real impetus to end this war will come from the Global South, where politicians can see the widespread hunger and inflation that this conflict is causing, and are taking leading roles in offering their services as mediators.

Almost all of Europe was represented, including dozens from Italy, the country  mobilizing the continent’s largest peace demonstrations, with over 100,000 protesters. Unlike in the United States, where the demonstrations have been small, Italian organizers have successfully built coalitions that include trade unions and the religious community, as well as traditional peace groups. Their advice to others was to narrow and simplify their demands in order to broaden their appeal and build a mass anti-war movement.

The eight-person U.S. delegation included representatives from CODEPINK, Peace in Ukraine, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Veterans for Peace. U.S. retired colonel and diplomat Ann Wright was a featured speaker, along with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who joined remotely.

Despite the uniform bottom line of the participants, which was a call for peace talks, there were plenty of disagreements, especially in the workshops. Some people believed that we should continue to send weapons while pushing for talks; others called for an immediate end to weapons transfers. Some insisted on calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops, while others believed that should be the result of negotiations, not a pre-condition. Some put more blame on the role of NATO expansion and the interference of the U.S. in Ukraine’s internal affairs, while others said the blame belongs exclusively at the doorstep of the Russian invaders. 

Some of these differences were reflected in discussions surrounding the final declaration, where there was plenty of back and forth about what should and should not be mentioned. There were strong calls to condemn NATO provocations and the role of the U.S./UK in sabotaging early attempts at mediation. These sentiments, along with others condemning the West, were left out of the final document, which some criticized as too bland. References to NATO provocations that led to the Russian invasion were deleted and replaced with the following language:

“The institutions established to ensure peace and security in Europe fell short, and the failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

But the most important segment of the final document and the gathering itself was the call for further actions.

“This weekend should be seen as just the start,” said organizer Reiner Braun. “We need more days of action, more gatherings, more outreach to students and environmentalists, more educational events. But this was a great beginning of global coordination.”

Putin tells Africans: Russia doesn’t reject negotiations with Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by EFE published in Prensa Latina

Russia remains open to negotiations on a resolution to the conflict that began with its invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin said Saturday (June 17) in a meeting with officials of seven African nations on a peace mission.

“My dear friends, not we, but the leadership of Ukraine, announced that it would not conduct any negotiations. Moreover the president of Ukraine signed a decree prohibiting these negotiations,” the Russian head of state said in St. Petersburg

“We are ready to consider any of your proposals without preconditions,” Putin told Presidents Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, Azali Assoumani of the Comoros, Macky Sall of Senegal, and Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia.

The delegation, which also includes Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly and envoys representing the presidents of the Republic of the Congo and Uganda, met Friday in Kyiv with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

The purpose of what Ramaphosa described as a “historic” mission was to present to the Ukrainian and Russian governments a 10-point peace plan drawn up by African countries.

“We welcome the balanced approach of African friends to the Ukraine crisis,” Putin told the visitors. “We’re open to constructive dialogue with all those who want peace based on the principles of respect for each other’s interests, as well as justice.”

“This war has to have an end. It must be settled through negotiations and through diplomatic means,” Ramaphosa said during the meeting at Konstantinovsky Palace.

“This war is having a negative impact on the African continent and indeed, on many other countries around the world,” the South African said.

Putin took the opportunity to show the delegation what he said was a draft peace agreement from March 2022.

“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that with (Turkish) President (Recep Tayyip) Erdogan’s assistance, as you know, a string of talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Turkey so as to work out both the confidence-building measures you mentioned, and to draw up the text of the agreement,” Putin said.

“We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initialed by the head of the Kyiv negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” the Russian president, holding up a piece of paper.

“It was called treaty of permanent neutrality and security guarantees of Ukraine,” Putin said, adding that the document included 18 articles pertaining to Ukraine’s security.

“Well, after we – as promised – withdrew troops from Kyiv, Kyiv authorities … threw it all away,” the Russian president said.

International civil society from Vienna: “We need negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Pressenza

After two intense days of work and discussion, the Final Declaration of International Civil Society has been circulated by the Promoters of the Vienna Peace Summit, and it will be sent to political leaders around the world, calling on them to act in support of a ceasefire and negotiations in Ukraine.

An important achievement – to which, among the summit organizers, the Italian entities of the “Europe for Peace” coalition contributed – that will enable the international peace movement to work jointly in the coming months on paths toward a just and possible Peace; a path to Peace that must be based on the principles of common security, international respect for human rights and self-determination of all communities. And with an upcoming date already defined: in fact, the Summit’s Final Declaration includes an invitation to civil society in all countries to join together in the implementation of “a week of global mobilization (from Saturday, September 30 to Sunday, October 8, 2023) for an immediate ceasefire and for Peace negotiations to end this war.”

The two days of debate [were used to] build a political alternative to a war that continues to upset the entire World with its evil and its capacity to destroy lives and the environment. Plenary speeches and working groups addressed from different perspectives what determines this war in terms of suffering, disasters, crises, and risks of nuclear accident or war. They also addressed, of course, how to be able to concretely solidarize with the Ukrainian people [who have been] under siege and bombardment for 16 months. Because saving lives is the priority, and war is certainly not the answer.

“We listened, moved, to the testimonies of Yuri, Olga, Oleg, Karina, and Nina who conveyed to us what it means to live under bombs or in exile, to have to decide in a matter of seconds where to go, whether to flee one’s own country or to hide so as not to end up in jail on terrorism charges. Those who participated in the Vienna Summit measure themselves against this reality, seeking paths of dialogue to rebuild mutual trust, to reaffirm solidarity. The path we call for must be taken by all civil society movements in order to make the alternative to war possible,” stresses Sergio Bassoli of the Peace Disarmament Network and one of the coordinators of “Europe For Peace.”

In the Final Declaration, the organizations of the broad coalition present highlight that they are “firmly united in their conviction that war is a crime against humanity and that there is no military solution to the current crisis,” expressing alarm over the ongoing war.

Condemnation for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is explicitly reiterated, stressing that “the institutions created to ensure Peace and Security in Europe have failed, and the failure of diplomacy has led to war. Diplomacy is now urgently needed to end the armed conflict before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

The work of all civil society organizations involved will converge on this shared demand: “negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.”

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

Below is the text of the “Vienna Declaration for Peace” drafted by the organizations participating in the summit:

Peace by peaceful means. Ceasefire and negotiations now!

We, the organizers of the International Summit for Peace in Ukraine, call on the leaders of all countries to act in support of an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

We are a broad and politically diverse coalition representing Peace movements civil society, including believers, in many countries. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and that there is no military solution to the current crisis.

We are deeply alarmed and saddened by the war. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and injured, and millions are displaced and traumatized. Towns and villages throughout Ukraine, as well as the natural environment, have been destroyed.

Far greater death and suffering could still occur if the conflict escalates to the use of nuclear weapons, a risk that is higher today than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The institutions created to ensure Peace and Security in Europe have failed, and the failure of diplomacy has led to war. Diplomacy is now urgently needed to end the armed conflict before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.

The path to Peace must be based on the principles of common security, international respect for human rights, and self-determination of all communities.

We support all negotiations that can strengthen the logic of Peace instead of the illogic of war.

We affirm our support for Ukrainian civil society defending its rights. We pledge to strengthen dialogue with those in Russia and Belarus who put their lives at risk to oppose war and protect democracy.

We call on civil society in all countries to join us in a week of global mobilization (Saturday, September 30 to Sunday, October 8, 2023) for an immediate ceasefire and for Peace negotiations to end this war.

Vienna, June 11, 2023

(Editor’s note: Some participants, according to Medea Benjamin regretted that the final declaration failed to condemn NATO for provocations that led to the war and sabotage of early attempts at mediation.)

Can Pope Francis bring peace to Ukraine?

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article by Thomas Reese in the National Catholic Reporter

Pope Francis has launched a peace mission aimed at finding a settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war, upsetting Ukraine’s allies with his refusal to insist that Russia leave Ukraine as a starting point for negotiations. For their part, the Russians simply ignore the pope.

Western supporters of Ukraine accuse the pope of moral equivalency, treating both sides as equal. This is nonsense.

Just four weeks into the war, the pope condemned  the “the violent aggression against Ukraine” and the “senseless massacre where every day there is a repetition of slaughter and atrocities,” in his Sunday Angelus in March 2022. “There is no justification for this!”


Photo of meeting between the Pope and Ukrainian President Zelensky on May 13 (EFE)

The Vatican has always said that it wants a “just peace.” When America Media’s Gerard O’Connell  asked Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s foreign minister, what a just peace meant for the Vatican, Gallagher said it meant a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.

This is not to say the pope holds the West blameless. In June of last year Francis told La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit publication, that a couple of months before the war an unnamed “wise” diplomat had expressed concern to him about NATO. “They are barking at the gates of Russia,” the diplomat said. “And they don’t understand that the Russians are imperial, and they will not allow any foreign power to approach them. The situation could lead to war,” concluded the diplomat.

While Francis made clear that this was the diplomat’s opinion, it is hard not to conclude that Francis agreed with him. He seems to believe, as many in the Global South do, that NATO somehow either provoked or failed to prevent the war.

Francis has also noted “the interest in testing and selling weapons” to combatants in the war. There is no question that the American military-industrial complex is profiting in Ukraine, financially as well as strategically: The Russian war machine is being severely degraded without the loss of a single American life.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Religion: a barrier or a way to peace?, What makes it one or the other?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column).

But responding to those who accuse him of being pro-Putin, Francis told La Civilta Cattolica: “No, I am not. It would be simplistic and erroneous to say such a thing. I am simply against turning a complex situation into a distinction between good guys and bad guys, without considering the roots and self-interests, which are very complex.”

The pope acknowledged “the brutality and ferocity with which this war is being carried out” by the Russian side. “While we witness the ferocity and cruelty of Russian troops,” he said in the La Civilta Cattolica interview, “we should not forget the problems, and seek to solve them.”

The pope is not cheering on either side in this war, which is an essential quality needed in a mediator. The pope has appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi  as a special envoy for peace in Ukraine. Both sides have used the Vatican for facilitating exchanges of prisoners, which is a good sign.

With Ukraine unwilling to give up any of its territory — including Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 — is there something else that would appease Russia and allow Putin to save face in defeat? I think there is: nuclear weapons.

The West has always feared the Red Army sweeping into Europe — indeed, it’s the reason NATO exists. Because the U.S. and Europe were unwilling to pay for enough conventional weapons to stop what they considered a formidable force, they relied on tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Red Army’s invasion.

We now see that the Russian army is a Potemkin army, more show than substance. If Ukraine all by itself can hold off the Russians and score victories, NATO would wipe the floor with them without using tactical nuclear weapons.

This military reality calls for a rethinking of NATO’s nuclear policy. As part of settling the Ukraine-Russia war, NATO and the U.S. should do two things: First, swear off the first use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Second, negotiate the elimination or at least reduction of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

Ukraine will have to agree to not “officially” join NATO. The war has already made Ukraine part of NATO unofficially. Ukraine would continue to receive weapons, but no NATO troops can be deployed on Ukrainian soil.

Putin, as an authoritarian autocrat, can continue this war indefinitely. We must give him something to get him to stop. He could save face by telling his people that the war succeeded in forcing NATO into this deal.

There is a temptation to let the war go on as long as Russia is stymied and suffering huge military losses in the speculative hope that it will bring down Putin. But Ukraine is also suffering both military and civilian losses.

The pope reminds us to look at “the human side of the war,” the impact on people’s lives, the deaths, the refugees, the widows and orphans. The war cannot be examined only in terms of “geopolitical calculations.” Too many people are dying. The pope is right in calling for peace. Unnecessary tactical nuclear weapons in Europe would be a cheap price to pay for it.

A united civil society push for Spain to join the TPNW

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Forty-five civil society organisations in Spain have come together to form a coalition with a single mission: to persuade the Spanish government to adhere to the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The Alianza por el Desarme Nuclear  (Alliance for Nuclear Disarmament), which has the backing of ICAN, was launched in Madrid on 23 May. It will work to raise public awareness of the treaty’s importance and lobby decision-makers to endorse it.

Speaking at the launch event, the alliance’s coordinator, Maribel Hernández, urged the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, to “take a courageous step forward” and sign the TPNW “as a symbol of our country’s commitment to peace”. She stressed the danger of “normalising the existence of nuclear weapons” and promoting a security model based on the possession of such weapons. As a NATO member, Spain has repeatedly endorsed the notion that US nuclear weapons offer it “protection” and could, in certain circumstances, be used on its behalf.

Carlos Umaña, a co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War  and member of ICAN’s international steering group, recalled that Sánchez committed in 2018 to sign the TPNW, but this promise “remains unfulfilled”. It was part of a deal  struck with the leader of the Podemos political party, Pablo Iglesias. Umaña also noted that a majority of Spaniards – 89 per cent, according to a YouGov poll  in 2020 – want the government to sign the TPNW. “We are at the most worrying moment in history in terms of the risk of a possible large-scale nuclear war from which there would be no going back,” he warned.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

A broad coalition of organisations

The Alliance for Nuclear Disarmament comprises  a diverse range of organisations and other entities working in the fields of peace and disarmament, human rights, the environment, and social justice, including Centre Delás d’Estudis per la Pau, the Spanish section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, AIPAZ (Spanish Association for Peace Research), FundiPau, Fundación Cultura de Paz, Greenpeace, Desarma Madrid, Ecologistas en Acción, General Commission for Justice and Peace, Mayors for Peace, Gernika Gogoratuz, Women in Black Madrid, Pressenza and MOC (Movement for Conscientious Objection). Since its launch, many more groups and individuals have expressed an interest in joining the alliance.

The groups are asking local municipalities  and regional parliaments to appeal to the Spanish government to join the TPNW. Barcelona and dozens of other cities and towns have already pledged their support, as has the autonomous community of Navarre. Pending Spain’s accession to the TPNW, the alliance believes that the government should observe the official meetings of states parties to the treaty, held roughly every two years. The NATO members Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway observed the first  such meeting, held in Vienna last June. The second meeting will take place in New York this November.

Spain and the TPNW

The TPNW was negotiated at the United Nations in New York in 2017 and adopted with the support of 122 states. Spain opted not to participate in the process and has not yet taken any steps towards becoming a state party. Ahead of the treaty’s adoption, the foreign affairs committee of the Spanish congress of deputies passed a resolution  calling on the government to support the approval of the new treaty – but it was not heeded. In 2020, the same committee welcomed  the TPNW “as an effort to move towards peace, security, and disarmament”.

Three former Spanish foreign ministers – Ana Palacio, Javier Solana, and Carlos Westendorp – signed an open letter  in 2020 with dignitaries from other NATO states and Japan calling on current leaders to “show courage and boldness – and join the [TPNW]”. Solana is also a former NATO secretary-general. They noted in their letter that the TPNW does not prevent its parties from remaining in alliances with nuclear-armed states, such as NATO, “but we would be legally bound never under any circumstances to assist or encourage our allies to use, threaten to use, or possess nuclear weapons”.