Category Archives: global

Speech of Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, to the G20 Summit

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

Transcription from the Video of his speech (transcription by Vizard and translation by CPNN)

Thank you to President Lula and to Brazil for inviting me to this forum.

It is the second time that a Colombian president has been invited, President Santos first and now me.

I want to speak on behalf of a part of Colombian society that I hope will be the majority.

Hunger. If there is no hunger in the south, there is no migration from the south to the north.


Frame from video of speech

Any policy that seeks to put migrants in concentration camps, any programs that seek and hunt migrants to return them to their countries of origin, will fail.

It will fail, it has failed.

The only effective policy to stop the exodus of people from the south to the north is for the south to be more prosperous, to not be hungry. That is the effective policy. And I invite the members of the G20 to practice it with reason and truth, not with hypocrisy.

Every blow to a migrant abroad is simply the recognition of the inability of the rich North to end hunger in humanity.

Ending hunger in humanity requires, in my opinion, three approaches that I want to leave with you.

First is the reject the concept of food security based on countries that export food to the rest of the world based on an intensive use of oil and coal. This has not ended hunger in the world.

Second, I propose to build, instead of the concept of a free world market for food security, the concept of food sovereignty, which consists of being able to produce enough food in countries where there is hunger. That requires a carbon-free agriculture based on the peasantry and the small farmer, not on the large agrarian multinational.

It is the peasantry and the small farmer of each country who should till the land and fulfill its social function as the primary means to feed their own people and the world.

We call this agrarian reform: that the peasantry of the world and the small farmers should have greater power as citizens, with full political and economic rights, as a basic guarantee for a decarbonized agriculture that feeds all citizens, all people in humanity.

Third, I would like to see this meeting go deeper into the topic of artificial intelligence. If artificial intelligence, which is going to expand exponentially, is fed by fossil fuels, oil and coal, it will interact with the climate crisis, deepening it. The climate crisis and artificial intelligence both have enormous potential to increase hunger in the world. Artificial intelligence can put hundreds of millions of workers out of work, and they will go hungry. Hunger in the world will increase if we are not able to at least set two objectives.

The first objective, contrary to someone who spoke here from Latin America, is to create a global public policy regulation of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is the accumulated intellect of humanity in the digital cloud. Its privatisation can substantially increase hunger and, as Hawking has said, both with the climate crisis and with artificial intelligence, we have come to the edge of human extinction.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original speech in Spanish.)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Only global political regulation, true multilateralism, can overcome the immense danger it represents and put artificial intelligence at the service of human beings and not the other way around.

And a second objective to avoid throwing hundreds of millions of workers into the streets, increasing the exodus and increasing hunger, is a concept conceived in Brazil by sociologists who are now called dishonest, but who are profound thinkers on human problems. The concept is a universal citizen income.

Universal citizen income provides the possibility of ending hunger in the world. It demands that the millions of unemployed workers have something to eat. It leads us to demand a restructuring of international finances that is absolutely essential to overcome the climate crisis being discussed in Azerbaijan today, and to overcome hunger in the world.

I will end with some statements that I want to leave on behalf of a part of Colombian society.

First, the G20 must oppose the genocide in Gaza and call it what it is, without hypocrisy, genocide. If the G20, the powerful of the world, do not oppose genocide, humanity has no future.

Two, all kinds of economic blockades against any people in the world must cease, no matter the regime, because the blockade is a comprehensive and systematic violation of human rights, not of governments, but of human beings.

Three, regarding the war between Ukraine and Russia, I oppose the decision to permit the launch of missiles at Russia. There is no other solution than direct dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. Any peace talks that exclude one of the two peoples are only a war conference, not a peace conference. It is the Slavic peoples who must solve their problems and therefore the Russia-Ukraine dialogue must begin in order to achieve peace. Hopefully, it will take place on the basis of the precepts of the Munich agreement that Europe has forgotten.

Finally, I agree with the approach of the Republic of China on building a dialogue between civilizations. The new multilateral dialogue is not an imposition of some over others, but rather a global planetary democracy, and that implies, given human diversity, the recognition of this diversity and the construction of a dialogue between civilizations and not a confrontation, as Huntington said in the United States. I do not believe, and I have to say it here publicly, in something in that regard that was expressed at this conference.

I am a progressive, a radical democrat and a socialist. And I believe and am proud of it.

It is common struggle and human solidarity that has kept us alive on this planet since day one when we got together to hunt animals to eat, when we got together to make a bonfire to warm ourselves on cold nights.

We are not a society of individual atoms competing with each other. That is not the case even for the least intelligent animals.

We can only survive on this planet, overcome hunger, disease, inequality, overcome war, overcome the climate crisis, which is the main problem we face today, and put artificial intelligence to our service, if we help each other, if we are supportive, if we are a community, if we have common objectives, if we have common purposes and if we help each other.

Competition between human beings and nations has only brought us to the brink of
extinction.

The possibility of building a diverse civilization of humanity, even beyond this planet, taking care of this planet, depends on us helping each other, on us being supportive, and on us embracing the fact that the human species is a community.

Thank you, again, President Lula, for your very kind invitation.
– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Brazil: President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit And Handover Of The Presidency To South Africa

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article from the G20

President Lula’s Speech At The Closing Session Of The G20 Summit (official English translation).

Today, Brazil completes the penultimate stage of a four-year sequence in which developing countries have occupied the leadership of the G20.

Indonesia, India, Brazil, and, now, South Africa bring to the table perspectives that are of interest to the vast majority of the world’s population.

Starting in Bali, passing through New Delhi, and arriving in Rio de Janeiro, we strive to promote measures that have a concrete impact on people’s lives.


Video of speech with English interpretation

We launched a Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and began an unprecedented debate on taxing the super-rich.

We put climate change on the agendas of Finance Ministries and central banks and approved the first multilateral document on the bioeconomy.

We issued a Call to Action for reforms that make global governance more effective and representative, and we engage in dialogue with society through the G20 Social.

We launched a roadmap to make multilateral development banks better, bigger, and more effective and gave African countries a voice in the debt debate.

We established the Women’s Empowerment Working Group and proposed an eighteenth Sustainable Development Goal to promote racial equality.

We defined key trade and sustainable development principles and committed to tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030.

We created a Coalition for Local and Regional Production of Vaccines and Medicines and decided to expand financing for water and sanitation infrastructure.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original speech in Portuguese.)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

We welcome events from the World Health Organization’s Investment Round, believing that more resources are needed to collectively respond to new and persistent health challenges.

We approved a Strategy to Promote Cooperation in Open Innovation and address asymmetries in scientific and technological production. We also decided to establish a task force on the governance of artificial intelligence at the G20.

This year, we held more than 140 meetings across 15 Brazilian cities.

We once again adopted consensus statements in almost all working groups.

We left a lesson: that the greater the interaction between the Sherpa and Finance tracks, the greater and more significant the results of our work will be.

We worked hard, even though we knew we had only scratched the surface of the world’s profound challenges.

After the South African presidency, all G20 countries will have exercised group leadership at least once.

This will be an opportune moment to evaluate the role we have played so far and how we should act from now on.

We have a responsibility to do better.

It is with this hope that I pass the gavel of the G20 presidency to President Ramaphosa.

This is not an ordinary handover of the presidency — it is the concrete expression of the historical, economic, social, and cultural ties that unite Latin America and Africa.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the Brazilian presidency, especially those who worked to make our achievements possible.

I wish our comrade Ramaphosa every success in leading the G20. South Africa can count on Brazil to exercise a presidency surpassing our achievements.

I remember the words of another great South African, Nelson Mandela, who said: it is easy to demolish and destroy; the heroes are those who build.

Let us continue building a just world and a sustainable planet.

Thank you very much.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Lula, The “Only Adult in the Room”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Un artículo por Andy Robinson* en CTXT Contexto y Acción (non-comercial use)

While Western leaders were trivializing the nuclear threat over caipirinhas, Brazil was seeking consensus in the face of the risk of World War III

There can be no tougher test for the G20 sherpas – the diplomats in charge of achieving consensus at meetings of the most powerful countries in the world – than the news of the preamble to a possible Third World War.

But something similar happened at the beginning of the Rio summit last week, when the still president of the United States, Joe Biden, gave the green light to Ukraine to fire long-range ATACMS missiles at targets in Russia. Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the obedient United Kingdom, a junior partner, would soon follow suit with British Storm Shadow missiles.

The news reached the Copacabana and Ipanema hotels, where the heads of state of dozens of countries were staying – led by Xi Jinping, Joe Biden, Shigeru Ishiba, the prime minister of Japan; Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz and the host and mediator, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Ukraine launched the first ATACMS missile against Russia during the opening of the summit, after a heavy Russian offensive the day before. To further tense the atmosphere in Rio, Russia announced the same day that it had modified its defence protocols to allow the use of nuclear weapons against a conventional offensive.

To anyone in Rio who had seen Doctor Strangelove or read Annie Jacobsen’s new book Nuclear War: A Scenario, it all seemed like a dangerous provocation from one nuclear superpower to another. Even thoughtful columnists like David Sanger, a nuclear strategy expert for the New York Times, recalled that “until this weekend, President Biden had refused to allow these attacks (…) for fear that they could provoke World War III.” Newsweek headlined: “Will Biden’s decision regarding ATACMS missiles provoke World War III? Our experts give their answer.”

Despite the routine tone used to talk about the end of humanity, the news made a dent in the bars of Rio de Janeiro. “Você entendeu o que eu entiende?” said a Carioca as the news was reported on GloboNews. Even evangelicals with apocalyptic convictions, who attended Sunday mass on the eve of the G20, seemed somewhat uneasy.

But European and American leaders and their advisers were enjoying the city of wonders and caipirinhas. Emmanuel Macron strolled through Copacabana and allowed himself to be photographed. Keir Starmer played football with a local children’s team and tried to convince the little ones that his team, Arsenal, is “the best in the world”. Biden’s daughter was photographed in front of the enormous Samauma tree in the Botanical Garden.

Curiously, there was no official announcement about the decision to authorise the attacks. When the news broke, Biden was in Manaus, and it was hard not to wonder whether the octogenarian president, lost in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, had heard that the decision had been taken to take the first step towards catastrophe. The deep state in Washington seemed to be in charge, perhaps in order to make life difficult for Donald Trump, who has promised to “end the war in 24 hours” once in the White House. Not even Kubrick would have imagined such a staging.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish version.)

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

(Continued from left column)

When they finally had to comment, Western leaders took Putin’s warnings about a possible nuclear response as one of the Machiavellian Russian leader’s bluffs. NATO missile strikes on Russia would serve as a final lesson before Trump takes office. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticised all of us who worry about the possibility of a Third World War as “irresponsible”.

In the face of the attitude of Western leaders in Rio, I could only recall what Jeffrey Sachs, the veteran economist at Columbia University, had told me. Sachs negotiated an economic rescue plan for the USSR (Russia) in 1990 with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, which was sabotaged by the then administration of George Bush Sr., bent on weakening Russia and expanding NATO as far as possible.

Authorizing long-range missiles against Russia, he explained to me, “could lead to escalation, and eventually to nuclear war. It is part of the continuing recklessness and arrogance of the US deep state, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and the arms contractors. It is also part of the UK’s continuing destructive role in the world system, which of course goes back to the British empire.” (The entire interview, with parts still unpublished, will be available to read shortly on my new Substack account.)

To quote Yanis Varoufakis, the Brazilian diplomats and Lula seemed “the only adults in the room” at the avant-garde Museum of Modern Art, where the summit was held. When the European and American delegations pressed for Russia to be explicitly condemned in the final communiqué, Lula refused. Aware that any hardening of neutral language would raise hackles in delegations from China and much of the global south, he opted for “a more moderate tone,” Celso Amorim, Lula’s veteran foreign policy adviser who met Putin in April last year, told me. In the end, the statement simply says: “The G20 condemns the war in Ukraine and its impacts on the global economy and supply chains.”

Lula has tried since the start of the war in Ukraine to seek a negotiated multilateral solution – meeting Zelensky in New York, but also holding talks with Putin – and has always criticised NATO expansion. Biden’s decision “is a dangerous escalation,” said Guilherme Casarões, of the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo. “Brazil has not specifically spoken out on the issue, but its position is to defend respect for international law, (…) and the principle of nuclear disarmament.”

European leaders lashed out at the final statement. “Disappointing,” Starmer said. “Insufficient,” agreed Olaf Scholz. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on the other hand, praised him for “calling for an honest and reasonable conversation about a peace based on realistic criteria.”

But Lula knew that “any different formulation could harm the consensus,” said Casarões. Brazilian diplomacy “always tries to build bridges,” summed up Olicer Stuenkel, another expert from the Getulio Vargas Foundation.

However, there may be a paradox in the dramatic story of the G20 in Rio de Janeiro. Because it is not only NATO that plays with reckless frivolity in the game of roulette that could end with the end of the world. Putin, of course, is a player as reckless as the neocons of the deep state in Washington: “Lula and Amorim wanted to put on the table the idea of ​​a broader, more multilateral negotiation to get out of the impasse in Ukraine,” said Rodrigues. “And that Russian offensive was, I believe, a tactic to undermine that possibility of seeking peace. Putin is no longer interested in negotiating anything; he is on the offensive and has a United States with Donald Trump at the helm that is going to offer him interesting things.”

*Andy Robinson is a correspondent for ‘La Vanguardia’ and a contributor to Ctxt since its founding. In addition, he belongs to the Editorial Board of this media. His latest book is ‘Oro, gasolina y aguacates: Las nuevas venas abiertas de América Latina’ (Arpa 2020)

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

ICESCO Director General: Peace education is an investment in a safer, more prosperous future for humanity

… EDUCATION FOR PEACE …

An article from ICESCO

Dr. Salim M. Al-Malik, Director General of the Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ICESCO), stressed that peace education is the best way to find innovative and collaborative solutions to current global challenges such as conflicts, wars and the climate crisis. He added that the first step involves integrating peace education into education systems, noting that ICESCO has implemented many pioneering initiatives in this regard, convinced that peace education is an investment in a safer and more prosperous future for all humanity.

This statement was part of Dr. Al-Malik’s virtual address delivered on Wednesday 27 November 2024, at the opening of the two-day Global Summit for Peace Education, held by the Global Peace Education Network, in Paris, in cooperation with ICESCO as a strategic partner. The Summit brings together several senior officials and representatives of international institutions concerned with promoting global peace, including Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(Continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Where is peace education taking place?

(Continued from left column)

Dr. Al-Malik reviewed ICESCO’s main efforts in the field of peacebuilding, including the Leadership Training in Peace and Security Program (LTIPS), which has so far trained 180 young men and women from 68 countries to become ICESCO Young Peace Ambassadors, building their capacity and leadership skills to participate effectively in peacebuilding efforts in their communities, in line with the Organization’s “360° Peace Approach”.

He explained that technologies will play a key role in shaping the future, placing everyone under a moral obligation to ensure the responsible use of new technologies, particularly AI, underlining the important role of peace education through the ethical use of technologies in education systems. “In this respect, ICESCO launched the Riyadh Charter on AI Ethics for the Islamic world and held rich discussion sessions on peace and climate change during its participation in COP29,” he added.

ICESCO Director General concluded his address by affirming that the Organization seeks to promote the values of coexistence, understanding and mutual respect among all, through its Center for Civilizational Dialogue, and stressed ICESCO’s willingness to host the next edition of the Global Summit for Peace Education at its headquarters in Rabat, Morocco.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

World Future Policy Award 2024: Peace & Future Generations

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

A press release from the World Future Council

The World Future Policy Award celebrates top policy solutions for current and future generations. We raise global awareness of exemplary laws and policies, accelerating policy action towards a common future where every person lives in dignity on a healthy, sustainable planet. As the world’s premier policy prize, we showcase inspiring and effective policies, not individuals, on the international stage. Each year, we focus on one topic where progress is particularly urgent and receive nominations from across the globe. This year’s topic is Peace and Future Generations.

Enduring peace is perhaps the most critical component for the sustainable development of societies and the protection of both people and the planet. Our global community is in desperate need of creative and inclusive policy solutions at all levels to resolve conflict, prevent war, and foster a culture of peace.
The good news is, these policies exist!

From 47 nominations spanning 29 countries, our esteemed panel of international experts selected four Winning Policies, one Vision Award, and three Honourable Mentions. The winners were celebrated at the Award Ceremony at the Maison de la Paix in Geneva (November 27).

AND THE 2024 WINNERS ARE…

KAUSWAGAN’S “FROM ARMS TO FARMS” PROGRAMME (PHILIPPINES) (2010)


Launched in 2010 in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, Philippines, the “From Arms to Farms” programme has reintegrated over 5,000 former combatants into society through sustainable agriculture. Under the leadership of Mayor Rommel C. Arnado, the initiative addresses poverty, distrust in governance, and historical inequalities, transforming the municipality into a model of peace and sustainable development. By reducing poverty rates from 80% in 2010 to 9.1% by 2020 and fostering peace between Christian and Muslim communities, the programme demonstrates how innovative, integrated solutions can drive lasting change.

Participants receive training in organic farming and financial literacy, equipping them to build stable livelihoods. Community dialogues and conflict resolution foster reconciliation, while bi-weekly meetings with local leaders ensure transparency and inclusivity. Over 6,000 hectares of land have been cultivated, significantly enhancing food security and revitalising the local economy. All 13 of Kauswagan’s villages are now 100% organic. Since 2012, no armed conflict-related crimes have been reported.

Read more

Watch video

WELL-BEING OF FUTURE GENERATIONS (WALES) ACT 2015


The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is a landmark policy designed to promote sustainable development across all public bodies in Wales. Its core aim is to enhance the economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being of Wales, ensuring that present decisions do not compromise future generations. The Act mandates legal accountability for public bodies and prioritises community engagement at all levels, fostering economic resilience, environmental preservation, and social cohesion.

The Future Generations Commissioner supports these goals by encouraging long-term thinking and monitoring public bodies’ progress in meeting their well-being goals. This holistic system positions Wales at the forefront of sustainability efforts in line with global objectives. Highlighting such pioneering policies that protect the rights of future generations is both timely and essential.

Read more

Watch video

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

THE MORIORI PEACE COVENANT (NUNUKU’S LAW) (15TH CENTURY – ONGOING, RĒKOHU, NEW ZEALAND)


The Moriori Peace Covenant (Nunuku’s Law) is an extraordinary example of a long-standing commitment to peace, non-violence, and future generations. Established in the 15th century, it prohibits violence among the indigenous Moriori of Rēkohu (Chatham Islands, New Zealand). Despite facing immense aggression and oppression from Māori tribes Ngāti, Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, and later discrimination from European settlers, the Moriori upheld their commitment to non-violence.

Though this led to tragic losses, the Covenant became a powerful symbol of resilience and integrity. Recognised globally, Nunuku’s Law has influenced modern peace efforts and contributed to Moriori cultural revival, making it a model for intergenerational peacebuilding and sustainability. Despite influencing renowned non-violent leaders like Te Whiti, Tohu, and Mahatma Gandhi, the Covenant remains relatively unknown both in New Zealand and globally – a situation that calls for greater recognition.

Read more

Watch video

CANADA’S FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE POLICY (2017)

Since 2017, Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) has placed gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls at the heart of its international development strategy. Recognising that inclusive societies are more peaceful and prosperous, FIAP addresses systemic inequalities by promoting women’s leadership, enhancing access to education and healthcare, and fostering inclusive economic growth. Developed through consultations with over 15,000 participants across 65 countries, FIAP demonstrates Canada’s commitment to implementing UNSCR 1325 and advancing gender equality in peacebuilding and sustainable development.

FIAP’s feminist framework includes marginalised women and girls while engaging men and boys to challenge harmful gender norms. It prioritises innovation and partnerships, invests in research, fosters cross-sector collaboration, and supports communities in adapting to climate change by empowering women in agriculture and environmental decision-making.

Read more

Watch video

VISION AWARD 2024

A Vision Award policy has strong design and objectives, showing considerable potential for transformative impact, though it may lack proven implementation due to being relatively new or facing challenging circumstances.

THE NIGERIA NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON YOUTH PEACE AND SECURITY (2021)

The Nigerian National Action Plan on Youth, Peace, and Security (NNAPYPS) was developed in response to UN Security Council Resolution 2250, making Nigeria the first African country and second globally to adopt such a policy.

It seeks to engage youth in peacebuilding and conflict prevention, focusing on vulnerabilities like unemployment and empowering young people as peacebuilders. Despite contextual challenges, NNAPYPS shows great potential and has already improved youth engagement and representation, with incremental replication at the state level.
Emerging from a youth-driven grassroots movement, NNAPYPS is a significant achievement in peacebuilding, though still in its early stages, with the pilot phase nearing completion.

Watch video

EXPLORE THE 2024 AWARD BROCHURE!

Learn more about our winners, our honourable mentions, & the 2024 Award in our official brochure.

English, German, Spanish, French

Press Kit

Watch all out Winner Videos here.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

After Ending in Overtime, COP29 Called ‘Big F U to Climate Justice’

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Jessica Corbett from Common Dreams

Critics of the “COP of false solutions” said that instead of much-needed funding, developing nations got “a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit.”

It was early Sunday by the time the United Nations climate summit wrapped up in Baku, Azerbaijan after running into overtime to finalize deals on carbon markets and funding for developing countries that were sharply condemned by campaigners worldwide.

"COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it's not trash that's burning—it's our planet," declared Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law. "And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."

Recalling last year's conference in the United Arab Emirates, Oil Change International global policy senior strategist Shady Khalil highlighted that "the world made a deal at COP28 to end the fossil fuel era. Now, at COP29, countries seem to have been struck with collective amnesia."

"With each new iteration of the texts, oil and gas producers managed to dilute the urgent commitment to phase out fossil fuels," Khalil said. "But let's be clear: Rich countries' failure to lead on fossil fuel phaseout and to put the trillions they have hoarded on the table has done more to imperil the energy transition than any obstructionist tactics from oil and gas producers."

This year's conference began November 11 and was due to conclude on Friday, but parties to the Paris agreement were still negotiating the carbon market rules, which were finalized late Saturday, and the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance.

"The carbon markets in Article 6 of the Paris agreement were pushed through COP29 in a take-it-or leave-it outcome," said Tamra Gilbertson of Indigenous Environmental Network, decrying "a new dangerous era in climate change negotiations."

As Climate Home Newsreported, they establish two types of markets: "The first—known as Article 6.2—regulates bilateral carbon trading between countries, while Article 6.4 creates a global crediting mechanism for countries to sell emissions reductions."

The outlet pointed to expert warnings that "the rules for bilateral trades under 6.2 could open the door for the sale of junk carbon credits—one of the weaknesses of the previous crediting mechanism set up by the U.N. known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)."

Jonathan Crook of Carbon Market Watch said in a statement that "the package does not shine enough light on an already opaque system where countries won't be required to provide information about their deals well ahead of actual trades."

"Even worse, the last opportunity to strengthen the critically weak review process was largely missed," he continued. "Countries remain free to trade carbon credits that are of low quality, or even fail to comply with Article 6.2 rules, without any real oversight."

As for Article 6.4, “much lies in the hands of the supervisory body" that's set to resume work in early 2025, said Crook's colleague, Federica Dossi. "To show that it is ready to learn from past mistakes, it will have to take tough decisions next year and ensure that Article 6.4 credits will be markedly better than the units that old CDM projects will generate."

"If they are not, they will have to compete in a low-trust, low-integrity market where prices are likely to be at rock bottom and interest will be low," Dossi added. "Such a system would be a distraction, and a waste of 10 years worth of carbon market negotiations."

Some campaigners suggested that no matter what lies ahead, the embrace of carbon markets represents a failure. Kirtana Chandrasekaran at Friends of the Earth International
said that "the supposed 'COP of climate finance' has turned into the 'COP of false solutions.' The U.N. has given its stamp of approval to fraudulent and failed carbon markets."

"We have seen the impacts of these schemes: land grabs, Indigenous peoples' and human rights violations," Chandrasekaran noted. "The now-operationalized U.N. global carbon market may well be worse than existing voluntary ones and will continue to provide a get out of jail free card to Big Polluters whilst devastating communities and ecosystems."

Chandrasekaran's colleague Seán McLoughlin at Friends of the Earth Ireland was similarly critical of the conference's finance deal, asserting that "Baku is a big F U to climate justice, to the poorest communities who are on the frontlines of climate breakdown."

"COP29 has failed those who have done least to cause climate change and who are most vulnerable to climate breakdown because the process is still in thrall to fossil fuel bullies and rich countries more committed to shirking their historical responsibility than safeguarding our common future," he said. "Now it's back to citizens to demand our governments do the right thing. We must keep demanding the trillions, not billions owed in climate debt and a comprehensive, swift, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout. The struggle for climate justice is not over."

(continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

(Article continued from the left column)

Campaigners and developing nations fought for $1.3 trillion in annual climate finance from those most responsible for the planetary crisis. Instead, the NCQG document only directs developed countries to provide the Global South with $300 billion per year by 2035, with a goal of reaching the higher figure by also seeking funds from private sources.

The deal almost didn't happen at all. As The Guardiandetailed Saturday: "Developed countries including the U.K., the U.S., and E.U. members were pushed into raising their offer from an original $250 billion a year tabled on Friday, to $300 billion. Poor countries argued for more, and in the early evening two groups representing some of the world's poorest countries walked out of one key meeting, threatening to collapse the negotiations."

While Simon Stiell, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, celebrated the NCQG as "an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country," Chiara Martinelli, director at Climate Action Network Europe, put it in the context of the $100 billion target set in 2009, which wealthy governments didn't meet.

"Rich countries own the responsibility for the failed outcome at COP29," Martinelli
said. "The talk of tripling from the $100 billion goal might sound impressive, but in reality, it falls far short, barely increasing from the previous commitment when adjusted for inflation and considering the bulk of this money will come in the form of unsustainable loans. This is not solidarity. It's smoke and mirrors that betray the needs of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis."

Also stressing that "it's not even real 'money,' by and large," but rather "a motley mix of loans and privatized investment," Oxfam International's climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, called the agreement "a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit."

"The terrible verdict from the Baku climate talks shows that rich countries view the Global South as ultimately expendable, like pawns on a chessboard," Dabi charged. "The $300 billion so-called 'deal' that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous—a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown."

Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who is in Baku, took aim at not only rich governments, but also the host, saying that "the Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency's ineptitude in brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy."

Cleetus' group is based in the United States, which is preparing for a January transfer of power from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who notably ditched the Paris agreement during his first term.

"The United States—the world's largest historical contributor of heat-trapping emissions—is going to see a monumental shift in its global diplomacy posture as the incoming anti-science Trump administration will likely exit the Paris agreement and take a wrecking ball to domestic climate and clean energy policies," Cleetus warned. "While some politically and economically popular clean energy policies may prove durable and action from forward-looking states and businesses will be significant, there's no doubt that a lack of robust federal leadership will leave U.S. climate action hobbled for a time."

"Other nations—including E.U. countries and China—will need to do what they can to fill the void," she stressed. "Between now and COP30 in Brazil next year, nations have a lot of ground to make up to have any hope of limiting runaway climate change."

Ben Goloff of the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity called out the departing Biden administration, arguing that it "should be going out with at least a signal of its moral climate commitment, not copping out ahead of the Trump 2.0 disaster."brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy.”
Cleetus’ group is based in the United States, which is preparing for a January transfer of power from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who notably ditched the Paris agreement during his first term.

“The United States—the world’s largest historical contributor of heat-trapping emissions—is going to see a monumental shift in its global diplomacy posture as the incoming anti-science Trump administration will likely exit the Paris agreement and take a wrecking ball to domestic climate and clean energy policies,” Cleetus warned. “While some politically and economically popular clean energy policies may prove durable and action from forward-looking states and businesses will be significant, there’s no doubt that a lack of robust federal leadership will leave U.S. climate action hobbled for a time.”

“Other nations—including E.U. countries and China—will need to do what they can to fill the void,” she stressed. “Between now and COP30 in Brazil next year, nations have a lot of ground to make up to have any hope of limiting runaway climate change.”

Ben Goloff of the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity called out the departing Biden administration, arguing that it “should be going out with at least a signal of its moral climate commitment, not copping out ahead of the Trump 2.0 disaster.”

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Book review: A World Parliament – Governance and Democracy in the 21st Century

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

Book review from Democracy without Borders

Global challenges such as war, poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental destruction are overwhelming nation-states and today’s international institutions. Even the best policies are futile if there are no appropriate political structures in place to implement them. Autocracy and nationalism further undermine global collaboration. 

Achieving a peaceful, just and sustainable world civilization requires an evolutionary leap forward. Following the emergence of democracy in ancient times and its spread to modern states from the 18th century onwards, a third democratic transformation is imminent: expanding democracy to the global scale. The creation of a democratic world parliament is the centerpiece of this project. 

This book explores the history, contemporary relevance and implementation of this monumental idea. 

This updated and revised edition expands the size by about one fifth.

Published in July 2024, 541 pages.

About the book

History and pioneers

The first part of the book explores the philosophical foundations of cosmopolitanism and a world parliament since ancient times. It fills a gap in the literature by tracing the history of the idea and of the attempts to bring it about from the French Revolution to the present day. In this regard, the book also serves as a comprehensive reference.

Contemporary relevance

The second part sets the issue in the context of global challenges such as climate change and planetary boundaries, the management of public goods, the pandemic threat, the stability of the financial system, combating tax evasion, terrorism and organized crime, disarmament, and protecting human rights. The construction of global democracy also plays a decisive role in combating hunger, poverty and inequality and in global water policy. Rapid developments in the fields of bio- and nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence are giving rise to fundamental questions that humanity is not prepared for.

(continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

How can parliamentarians promote a culture of peace?

(continued from left column)

There is an overarching narrative that exposes the dysfunctions and deficiencies of the international system. At the same time, the alternative of a democratic world order and its underlying principles is presented with increasing depth. The authors stress that there is a right to democracy that applies not only to the national but also to the global level. Against the backdrop of the power structures of the transnational elite, the book argues for the implementation of a new global social contract. Finally, it outlines the contours of a new global enlightenment as well as the emergence of planetary consciousness and global solidarity.

Implementation

The third part discusses pathways, drivers and conditions for a transition to global democracy and outlines elements of a future global constitution. The book suggests that the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly represents a first step that is long overdue.

Second edition

The second edition reflects significant developments since the original publication, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic, autocratization, and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. It incorporates linguistic improvements, updated content, extensive revisions, and additions throughout the book.

Review

“A World Parliament achieves several things. First, it shows how the campaign to create a people’s assembly at the UN carries the baton forward in a long history of efforts to overcome nationalist and racist hatred, discrimination and oppression. Second, it demonstrates why the world’s multiple challenges and crises cannot be addressed effectively and legitimately without a democratic body where everyone on the planet is represented as free and equal. Third, it offers a stirring vision of such a world parliament and a realistic plan of action for bringing it about. Each of these is a major accomplishment. Achieving them all in one book is a triumph.”

Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, Associate Professor of Global Politics in the Departments of Government and International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Sciences

The authors

Andreas Bummel: founder of Democracy Without Borders and the international Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. 

Jo Leinen: former member of the European Parliament and former minister of the environment in the German state of Saarland

(Thank you to Peter Newton for sending this article to CPNN.)

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

President Claudia Sheinbaum at the G20: Mexico’s Role on the Global Stage

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article by Pablo Guillén & Emilio Dorantes Galeana for the Wilson Center (abridged)

The 2024 G20 Rio de Janeiro summit is the nineteenth meeting of the Group of Twenty (G20), a Heads of State and Government meeting taking place in Rio de Janeiro from 18–19 November 2024.  

Sheinbaum speaking to the G20

The G20 is an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 sovereign countries, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU). The group works to address major issues related to the global economy, such as international financial stability, climate change mitigation and sustainable development, through annual meetings of Heads of State and Heads of Government. 

The 19 official member countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and United States. Although there are also guest countries in every meeting.   . . .

This is President Sheinbaum’s first international appearance since taking office in October. Her participation in the G20 summit represents Mexico’s reengagement with major international forums after years of withdrawal under former President López Obrador. Sheinbaum criticized the rise in global military spending and advocated for increased investment in reforestation programs. She argued that allocating just 1% of global military spending to reforestation programs could significantly impact poverty, migration, and climate change mitigation. 

“What is happening in our world when, in just two years, spending on weapons has grown almost three times as much as the world economy? How is it that the economy of destruction has reached an expenditure of more than $2.4 trillion? How is it that 700 million people in the world still live below the poverty line?” Sheinbaum began her participation with these questions, to give way to the general philosophy of her proposal: “I come on behalf of a generous, supportive and wise people to call on the great nations to build and not to destroy. To forge peace, fraternity and equality. Call us idealists, but I prefer that to being conformists.” 

“I belong to a generation that fought against repression, authoritarianism, for social justice and democracy, and I come from a great people who decided to establish, through peaceful means, a new history for my country,” she said. “Since our political project began in 2018, Mexico has been building a new course […]. The dogma of neoliberal faith, that the market resolves everything, has been left behind.”  

Sheinbaum repeated one of the major slogans of her predecessor López Obrador: “For the good of all, the poor first.” Furthermore, Sheinbaum highlighted the success of the Sembrando Vida program, which was presented by the Mexican government to the United States as a tool to mitigate migratory flows. “We allocate $1.7 billion each year to support 439,000 families in Mexico, and 40,000 in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. In six years, more than one million hectares have been reforested, with the planting of 1.1 billion trees.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

The idea includes a global commitment to the summit’s goals. “With this, we would help mitigate global warming and restore the social fabric by helping communities get out of poverty. The proposal is to stop sowing wars and instead sow peace and sow life.” 

Key Highlights of Mexico´s Proposal: 

° Ambitious Scale: The initiative would reforest 15 million hectares an area four times the size of Denmark or equivalent to all of Guatemala, Belize, and El Salvador combined. 

° Job Creation: It aims to employ 6 million tree planters, offering livelihoods to vulnerable communities while combating environmental degradation. 

° Inspiration: Sheinbaum cited Mexico’s Sembrando Vida program as a proven model, which supports rural families with wages and technical training, resulting in the planting of over 1 billion trees and the capture of 30 million tons of CO₂ annually. 

Private dialogues and meetings 

President Sheinbaum held private dialogues with the representatives of France, Vietnam, Colombia, China, Canada and the United States. Likewise, she held a group meeting with representatives from Chile, Colombia and Brazil.  

° Emmanuel Macron (France): Both presidents agreed to cooperate on key issues, including water management, healthcare, and infrastructure development. They also committed to jointly promoting gender equality, emphasizing its importance as a global priority.  

° Pham Minh Chinh (Vietnam): Both leaders agreed to strengthen cultural ties between Mexico and Vietnam.  

° Gustavo Preto (Colombia): Both presidents highlighted the strength of the relationship between Mexico and Colombia, based on cooperation, trade and the deep cultural ties that unite both countries. 

° Xi Jinping (China): Both leaders discussed Mexico and China´s relationship and the investment space that the Asian country has, considering the trade agreement (USMCA) that Mexico has with North America. Moreover, Sheinbaum expressed gratitude for China’s support in aiding Acapulco’s recovery after the devastating hurricane it faced.  

° Justin Trudeau (Canada): Both leaderscelebrated the strong relationship between their peoples and governments. They also acknowledged the importance and positive impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on the region.

° Joe Biden (United States): Both presidents discussed key bilateral issues. According to a statement from the White House, the two leaders emphasized the need to maintain cooperation on migration, security, and combating transnational criminal violence. They also addressed economic matters, stating the strength of the US-Mexico bilateral partnership as a key element for mutual progress. Also at the meeting, President Sheinbaum asked President Biden for information on the capture of drug-lord Jesus “El Mayo” Zambada.

° Lula da Silva (Brazil), Gustavo Petro (Colombia) and Gabriel Boric (Chile): In the joint meeting the four presidents agreed on the importance of working together as the Latin-American progressive governments and spoke of the importance of maintaining such relationships. 

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Cuba: Announcement of the 6th International Conference for World Balance

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An announcment from the Cuban Diplomatic Repesentation (abbreviated)

With everyone and for the benefit of all
”
For dialogue between civilizations and for a culture of peace

January 28 – 31, 2025, Havana, Cuba

Following the high level of attendance at the preceding edition (2023) – over 1,100 delegates from 89 countries – the José Martí International Solidarity Project announces the planned holding of the 6th International Conference FOR WORLD BALANCE, in Havana on January 28-31, 2025.

The event is open to writers, historians, journalists, artists, politicians, economists, scientists and intellectuals in general; to representatives of social and solidarity movements, trade union and religious leaders; members of NGOs and scientific, feminist, youth, rural workers’ and ecological organizations and all people of good will who care about the defense of social justice, evenhanded development, dialogue and peace; who share the finer feelings of solidarity and the desire to build a better world.


This world forum of pluralistic and multidisciplinary thinking is supported and co-sponsored by UNESCO, the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science & Culture, the Fundación Cultura de Paz (Spain), Soka Gakkai International, the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO) and other international, regional and domestic institutions.



The conference will take place at a time when mankind is progressing towards new bases of organization of the world system, in the context of a transition in civilization which transcends the legacy of colonialism, hegemonism and unipolarity to make multilateralism and the sustainability of human development its basic aim.  

The International Conferences FOR WORLD BALANCE have become important academic/scientific platforms of various branches of knowledge – notably the social and human sciences – attended by hundreds of educators, researchers, social activists and intellectuals from every latitude who are invited, regardless of their origin, culture, political stance, or religious beliefs, to ponder the main problems of the times, pursue common aims conducive to unity of global action, and convince international public opinion that dialogue should prevail over war, love over hate, solidarity over egoism … in short, to disseminate ideas and awareness for building a better world – more just and at peace, so that we can look to the future with hope rather than apprehension.


(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for a Spanish version of the announcement)

Questions related to this article:

Does Cuba promote a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

This world conference will take place in the year of the 130th anniversary of the death on the battlefield of José Martí, the master spirit of Cuban independence, a great philosopher whose profoundly humanist output of extraordinary longevity inspires efforts to bring about sustainable development; social justice; the elimination of poverty; access to public health, education and culture; the affirmation of international cooperation, of multilateralism, of respect for the rights of others, of dialogue and of peace.


The event will be the setting for the creation of meaningful relations between people of good will, for conferring greater visibility and substance to the struggle for the common ideal of making the world a better place and saving life on Earth; old and new friends will meet in the search for unity of global action to raise awareness within international public opinion; working experiences will be shared, views expressed with the utmost respect and in a setting entirely free of sectarianism. The gathering is also seen as a continuance of the International Conferences on the Dialogue of Civilizations and the debates at the World Humanities Conference held in Liège, Belgium, under the auspices of UNESCO and the International Council for Philosophy & Human Sciences. 


Fundamental questions will be addressed in committees, panels, workshops, meetings, symposiums, specialized sessions, keynote speeches, special addresses and other modes of reflection and debate, as expected of an event of this nature and scale; the results will be published as papers for distribution to universities, other seats of learning and research institutions and made available on the social networks.

(Editor’s note: According to an email received at CPNN from World Beyond War, one of the events at the conference will be an event called “Building a World Beyond War,” on January 30th co-organized by CODEPINK, International Peace Bureau, People’s Human Rights Observatory, GAMIP, Kavilando, Black Alliance for Peace, Veterans For Peace, Jose Martí Project, and World BEYOND War.

For details on the themes of the agenda, submission of papers and registration for the conference, see the conference website.)

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

The Real Nobel Peace Prize: Join the World, not the U.S. Empire

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A speech published by War is a Crime (the version here is abbreviated. The original speech that you may read by following this link is more than twice as long, as it also contains the arguments used to justify war preparations and a detailed critique of NATO.)

Remarks by David Swanson upon acceptance of Real Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Norway, November 10, 2024.

It’s wonderful to be here with many of you whose work I’ve known but whom I’ve rarely if ever been with in person. I am very grateful to John Jones and Tomas Magnusson for arranging this event. I am thrilled to be here at the start of what I expect will be years of terrific work by the Lay Down Your Arms Foundation — an appropriate name here in the House of Literature. The great [Fredrik Heffermehl, who has been gone from us for nearly a year now, often stressed the influence on Alfred Nobel in the creation of the Nobel Peace Prize by Bertha von Suttner, the author of the 1889 novel Lay Down Your Arms.


The impact of that book was not, I think, due to the characters or the plot or any depiction of how horrific war can be, but rather to the way the book framed war abolition within a story of advancing civilization. . .
.
In 1889, war itself was being civilized. The Red Cross was seeking to tend the wounded. Atrocities were being banned. Disputes among royals were being mocked by republicans as proper grounds for wars. Arbitration was proving itself as an alternative to slaughter. With slavery and pillage being left behind, with religion beginning to fade, with the technology of weaponry rapidly advancing, war was losing its economic motive, its theocratic justification, and its suitability as a test of individual skill or courage. The ending of war was an idea that went from fringe craziness to mainstream popularity during Bertha von Suttner’s lifetime, and in great measure because of her.

And here we are, well over a century later, with many forms of violence fading fast. . . . And yet, war is on the rise, the risk of nuclear war is on the rise, and the weapons business through which a small number of countries fuel war around the world has lost all shame, replacing it with the pride of performing a laudable public service. Worst of all, the vision of successful war abolition has been set aside by a too easily discouraged public. In the words of Fredrik Heffermehl, “the main obstacle to global peace is the common belief that it is impossible.” . . .

In fact, nothing ever justifies war, and nothing ever justifies preparing for war. Even if we imagine a war that has never been, a necessary and noble war that does more good than harm, that protects against subhuman monsters, that does not slaughter the innocent for the gleam in a politician’s eye . . . even if we imagine such a war, the fact will remain that keeping around the bases, weapons, ships, and personnel that make war possible does more harm than war itself — and will until war goes nuclear. The institution of war wastes money that could save many more lives than are lost in wars. War preparation, like war, is a major destroyer of the environment, and the chief impediment to international cooperation on the environment, on disease, on poverty, on homelessness. War is, of course, the chief cause of homelessness. War preparation is the justification for government secrecy and surveillance. It is a major source of bigotry and hatred, and the biggest influence in our culture in favor of continued violence. It concentrates wealth, corrupts politicians, erodes liberties, and celebrates sadism.

Fredrik Heffermehl understood the need to abolish the entire institution of war. I think he would probably have cheered for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipients and considered them the first such recipients in at least six years to have merited the award based on the purpose for which it was created. Abolishing nuclear weapons is essential to our survival. But when some nations maintain nuclear weapons as a misguided response to the dominance of another nation in non-nuclear warmaking, we are faced with the need to abolish the entire war enterprise if we are going to abolish its worst weapons.

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Article continued from left column)

Reforming war isn’t going to work. Taboos on certain weapons aren’t going to hold. Restrictions on war’s cruelty are not going to be honored. During each war in recent years, we have heard the cries of the outraged: “This is not a war, it’s a genocide!” “This is not a war, it’s an occupation!” “This is not a war, it’s terrorism!” “This is not a war, it’s a crime!” And so forth. All perpetuating the myth that there ever has been or can be a war that isn’t cruel, that doesn’t terrorize, that kills only the proper people for killing. The desire to reform war has always been a noble one, but survival requires that we End it, Not Mend It. . .

What can we do to move the world in that direction?

Some of us try, as Fredrik Heffermehl did so well, to nudge the world along through books, as well as articles and speeches. I work for two organizations — RootsAction.org and World BEYOND War that, like many others, have an impact through online actions, organizing, and webinars. At World BEYOND War we also create in-depth online courses that provide an education often missing in schools. And we work with universities and schools to change that.

Most importantly, we organize local chapters with volunteer organizers who get assistance from our paid staff. World BEYOND War chapters hold meetings, book clubs, rallies, demonstrations, protests. They pass resolutions through local governments. They persuade institutions to divest from weapons profits. They put peace messages into local media. They oppose new and existing military bases.

On the World BEYOND War website we’ve created a tool that lets you spin a globe and zoom in on any of 917 U.S. military bases outside of the United States. We need your help with making sure we’ve got all the new ones. But we’re also taking them off when they’re closed, and never adding them when they’re planned but those plans are stymied. We’ve helped people in Montenegro prevent a major new NATO base from being built. People in the Czech Republic have kept a U.S. base out of their country. In Colombia, activists have blocked base construction on one island and are now protecting another. In Italy, activism failed to prevent a new base but kept it to a smaller size than planned. People have gotten bases out of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Ecuador. The president of Ecuador told the United States that it could keep a base in Ecuador if Ecuador could have a base in the United States. Now there’s a new president who wants to bring U.S. bases back, so the struggle never ends. But can you imagine the Norwegian government demanding a Norwegian military base in Wisconsin in exchange for the U.S. having bases here? I certainly cannot imagine the U.S. government allowing it.

The lesson I draw from having worked to oppose bases in several countries while based in the Washington, D.C., area or not too far from it, is that we are stronger when we have solidarity across borders, and in particular when we are working together both at the location of a base or a proposed base and at the location of the heart of the empire in Washington. A number of times now I have worked with opponents of U.S. bases in distant corners of the globe and watched as they were asked the inevitable question by U.S. Congress members or staffers, namely: “Well, if you don’t want the base there, then where do you want it?” And in each case, to their everlasting credit and praise, these good people have responded “We do not want it anywhere.”

That kind of principled opposition should be coordinated globally. We should have days of protest at U.S. bases across Scandinavia, together with protests delivering the same message in Washington, D.C. We should put our organizers, but also our writers and video producers and photographers, artists and song writers to work building a movement to get the bases out. But not because war will be better without a particular base, rather because closing a particular base can move us a bit closer to the total abolition of war.

That’s what we need to recover from the days of Bertha von Suttner, the vision of success ahead. That we’ve had more wars, that we’ve seen more years go by, is really not relevant. This is now a matter of survival. We desperately need to turn our attention to non-optional crises instead of these ginned up festivals of the lowest depravity that Russia calls special military operations and the U.S. calls overseas contingency operations or Israel’s right to defend itself, but the rest of us call war. No more now than in 1889 is there anything in our genes or the laws of physics requiring war. There is just something in our culture that says the most useful thing you can do, as done in virtually all Hollywood movies, is to pick up a weapon. We need a culture in which the most admirable and courageous thing you can do is to Lay Down Your Arms. Let’s work on getting there.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.